The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books 
are  reasons  for  disciplinary  action  and  may 
result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBAN  A-CHAMPA1GN 


ISfc  UUt.  i 


L161  — 0-1096 


THE  RELATIONS  OF  BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN  WITH 
THE  ENGLISH  LIBERALS  1774-1789 

BY 

MARTHA  HARRIET  DUBOIS 
A.  B.  University  of  Illinois,  1919 


THESIS 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 

Degree  of 

MASTER  OF  ARTS 

IN  HISTORY 


THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 
OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


1921 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/relationsofbenjaOOdubo 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 


192  / 


I HEREBY  RECOMMEND  THAT  THE  THESIS  PREPARED  UNDER  MY 


SUPERVISION  BY 


ENTITLED  r ) ^ L 2^  7 

UfM  /m*  /77/'//^f 


BE  ACCEPTED  AS  FULFILLING  THIS  PART  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 


Head  of  Department 


Recommendation  concurred  in* 


Committee 

on 

Final  Examination* 


’Required  for  doctor’s  degree  but  not  for  master’s 


CONTENTS 


Page 

INTRODUCTION  1 

CHAPTER  I ESTABLISHMENT  OF  FRANKLIN’S  FRIENDSHIPS  ....  12 

CHAPTER  II  POLITICAL  OPINIONS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  LI3ERALS  AND 

THEIR  RELATIONS  TO  FRANKLIN,  1774-1773  ....  18 

CHAPTER  III  THE  WAR  AND  NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  PEACE 37 

CHAPTER  IV  FRANKLIN'S  RELATIONS  WITH  THE  ENGLISH 

LIBERALS,  1783-1789  55 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  i 


INTRODUCTION 


No  more  striking  instance  of  the  diversity  of  opinion  in 
English  political  circlea  in  respect  to  the  American  Revolution  can 
be  found  than  the  fact  that  one  of  the  leading  spirits  of  that 
Revolution  maintained  throughout  the  struggle  a wide  circle  of 
sympathetic  friends  who  were  at  the  same  time  loyal  British  subjects, 
many  of  whom  held  prominent  political  offices.  Benjamin  Franklin 
had,  during  two  extended  missions  in  England,  acquired  the  acquain- 
tance and  friendship  of  many  Liberals.  The  relationships  between 
himself  and  these  friends  and  acquaintances,  any  possible  influence 
that  he  might  have  exercised  through  them  on  the  course  of  events 
before,  during,  and  at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  constitutes  the 
theme  of  this  discussion. 

A clear  understanding  of  the  political  conditions  on  the 
eve  of  the  Revolution  involves  a knowledge  of  those  conditions 
during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 

For  the  purposes  of  greater  religious  or  economic  freedom, 
numbers  of  British  subjects  had  established  colonies  on  the  eastern 
coast  of  North  America  during  the  seventeenth  century.  Left  much 
to  themselves  during  the  first  one  hundred  years,  they  developed 
representative  governments  with  a large  measure  of  control  over 
local  affairs  and  established  a thriving  trade,  especially  with  the 
West  Indies.  ^ The  Navigation  Act  of  1660  sought  to  secure  to  Great 


^Channing,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  Chapter  1. 


2 


Britain  greater  benefits  from  her  commerce,  first  by  requiring 
certain  colonial  exports  to  pass  through  England,  and  second  by 
confining  the  carrying  trade  to  ships  of  the  British  Empire.1  The 
first  act  in  restraint  of  trade  to  arouse  serious  protest  on  the  part 
of  the  Colonists  was  the  Molasses  Act  of  1733.  This  aimed  at  the 
profitable  trade  with  the  Spanish  and  French  West  Indies.  Since 
these  acts  were  not  strictly  enforced  before  1760,  colonial  commerce 
continued  to  grow,  while  little  friction  between  Britain  and  her 
colonies  resulted. 

The  accession  of  George  III  to  the  throne  of  England  in 
1760  marked  a new  era  in  British  politics,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 
The  Revolution  of  1688  and  the  reign  of  William  III  had  established 
the  principle  that  the  Crown  was  dependent  upon  Parliament.  From 
that  time  until  the  accession  of  George  III,  a growing  cabinet 
system  had  been  wresting  the  actual  government  from  the  hands  of 
the  King.  A small  number  of  Whig  families  had  come  into  control. 
Walpole  and  the  Pelhams  dominated  English  politics  until  1754.° 
Politics  again  fell  into  confusion;  there  was  a break-up  of  the  Old 
Whig  party  into  factions;  and  when  George  III  ascended  the  throne, 
he  attempted  to  secure  to  the  Crown  its  lost  power  by  a destruction 
of  party  rule.4  He  stood  aloof  from  parties  and  gathered  about  him- 
self a number  of  men  known  as  "King's  friends",  who  became  his 
advisers.  None  of  them  stood  well  politically.  There  were  two 

*Ibid. . II,  27. 

2Lask'i , Political  Thought  from  Locke  to  Bent  ham . 27. 

^Leadham,  History  of  England  (Hunt's  "Political  History  of 
England")  IX,  430. 

4Alvord,  Mi ssissiuoi  Valley  in  British  Politics,  I,  22  f . 


« 


3 


other  groups  who  also  championed  the  King  and  whose  ideal  of 
government  was  patterned  after  Bolingbroke ' s "Patriot  King."  The 
first  of  these  groups  was  composed  of  a number  of  unattached  Whigs, 
who  had  been  trained  under  the  Dukes  of  Bedford  and  Cumberland; 
who  were  unattached;  and  who  hoped  by  championing  the  King  to 
secure  offices.  The  second  group  constituted  the  Scotch  members 
of  Parliament.  The  leader  of  this  group  was  Lord  Karnes.  Disunited 
and  in  a minority,  as  these  groups  were,  it  was  necessary  for  the 

King  to  secure  the  support  of  one  or  more  of  the  Whig  factions. 

was 

To  accomplish  this,  his  plan  of  a "broad  bottom"  ministry /developed. 

Of  the  many  Whig  factions,  the  Pittites  and  their  offshoot, 
the  Grenvillites , were  the  only  ones  that  professed  adherence  to 
Bolingbroke ' s ideal  of  government,  the  former  more  than  the  latter. 
Yet  in  actual  practice,  Pitt  as  a Prime  Minister  was  distasteful  to 
the  King  because  of  his  dominating  personality.  One  of  the  first 
acts  of  George  III  was  to  rid  himself  of  Pitt.  He  accomplished 
this  October  5,  1761^  and  substituted  Bute,  a Tory  whose  ideas  of 

p 

government  and  foreign  policy  were  similar  to  his  own. 

The  remnant  of  the  Old  Whigs  inherited  the  principles  of 
the  Revolution  of  1683.  Consequently,  they  held  power  only  once 
during  the  reign  of  George  III.  Not  long  after  1760  the  power  of 
this  faction  fell  into  the  hands  of  Rockingham,  whose  talent  for 
statesmanship  was  mediocre.  In  later  years,  however,  this  faction 

^Hunt,  History  of  England,  X,  31. 

^Nivernofs. . . a critic  of  Bute  said  a few  months  later  that  the 
ministry  wanted  peace  for  three  reasons: (l)  to  triumph  over  their 
enemies;  (2)  to  give  the  King  an  opportunity  to  extinguish  the  fac- 
tions and  to  establish  his  personal  authority;  (3)  not  to  have  to  sue 
for  peace,  owing  to  a lack  of  funds.  To  Praslin,  September  24,1762. 
Quoted  in  Williams,  Basil,  Life  of  William  Pitt , II,  139. 


4 


came  to  be  dominated  by  its  most  brilliant  statesman,  Edmund  Burke, 

•J 

and  it  stood  for  reform  "in  a mild  way". 

In  addition  to  the  Grenvillites  and  the  Pittites,  which 
faction  contained  among  its  "adherents  the  ablest  minis  of  England", 
the  principal  Whig  offshoots  were  the  Bedfordites  and  the  followers 
of  the  Duke  of  Cumberland.  The  former,  better  k rown  as  the 
Bloomsbury  Gang,  represented  the  remnants  of  the  old  aristocratic 
party.  The  latter  joined  Bute  and  gave  him  assistance  in  making 
the  Treaty  of  Peace.  Their  chief  purpose  in  this  was  the  attainment 
of  office.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  Peace,  which  in  spite  of 
Pitt's  absence  reflected  his  imperialism,  the  King  attempted  to 
dominate  politics  and  to  bring  the  Colonies  under  closer  supervision 
in  accordance  with  seventeenth  century  imperialistic  ideas. 

Grenville  and  the  Bedfordite,  who  succeeded  Bute,  attempted  to  execute 
the  King's  imperialistic  plans  and  at  the  same  time  to  pay  the  war 
debt,  by  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act.  As  is  well  known,  this 
resulted  in  his  resignation  and  in  trouble  with  the  Colonies  which 
led  to  the  Revolution.  Meanwhile,  remnants  of  the  old  Tory  party, 
which  drew  its  strength  from  the  landed  aristocracy,  had  begun  to 
participate  in  politics.  The  first  formation  of  the  Leicester 
House  faction  was  a beginning.  After  the  accession  of  George  III, 
they  thronged  to  London  and  in  time  developed  unity  and  political 

experience.  When  Lord  North  became  Prime  Minister  in  1770,  they  had 

2 

developed  into  his  following.  Lacking  the  dominating  personality 
of  Walpole  or  Pitt,  North  was  easily  influenced  to  execute  the 
King's  will,  which  proved  so  disastrous  in  the  conduct  of  the 
affairs  of  the  Colonies. 

lAlvora,  Mississippi  Valicy  in  British  Politics , I,  chapter  1. 

3Ibid. , 


* 


■ 


5 


During  the  first  half  of  the  eighteenth  century,  there 
had  been  developing  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  a spirit  of 
democracy.  It  was  much  stronger  in  America  where  the  population 
constituted  almost  entirely  that  element  of  the  older  civilizations 
that  was  most  favorable  to  democracy;  where  economic  and  social  con- 
ditions were  conducive  to  its  growth;  and  where  the  communities  were 
a great  distance  from  the  restraining  hand  of  the  mother  country. 

In  contrast  to  the  spirit  of  democracy  that  constituted  so  large  an 
element  of  the  Colonial  Assemblies,  that  spirit,  in  England, had 
grown  up  outside  of  the  House  of  Commons. 

Since  Locke  had  laid  down  his  principles  respecting  the 
rights  of  man,  signs  o*  change  in  English  political  thought  had 
appeared.  Rousseau,  whose  Contrat  Social  was  published  in  1765, 
exerted  a wide  influence  upon  the  Liberals  of  England.  Too  much 
credit  should  not  be  given  him,  however,  for  the  seeds  of 
Revolution  had  long  since  been  sown,  and  only  awaited  a favorable 
opportunity  to  spread  discontent  broadcast.  Such  an  opportunity 
presented  itself  when  George  III  showed  his  intention  of  restoring 
the  old  order  of  government  by  the  Crown  alone.'1  The  spirit  of  dis- 
content spread  most  rapiily  among  the  Non-conformists.  First,  under 
a union  of  Church  and  State,  the  desire  to  be  free  from  religious 
restraint  aroused  a distrust  of  the  political  as  well.  Secondly, 
having  been  barred  from  political  activities,  they  had  turned  their 
attention  to  trade  and  commerce.  Restraints  imposed  in  accordance 
with  the  mercantilist  theories  then  practised  by  the  government 

^Laski,  Political  Thought  from  Locke  to  Bentham,  18S. 


o 

aroused  their  distrust  of  the  State.1  Foremost  among  the 
Revolutionists  were  Priestly  and  Price,  both  liberal  clergymen.  The 

former  engaged  his  attention  with  an  attack  on  the  Established 

2 

Church;  the  latter,  with  an  attack  on  the  Empire.  Both  men 
preached  the  doctrine  of  the  equality  of  man,  and  the  responsibility 
of  the  State  to  the  people.  Perhaps  the  foremost  figure  of  the  f 
Liberal  movement  was  Edmund  Burke*  He  was  more  conservative  than 
Priestly  and  Price  in  that  he  revered  tradition  and  the  British 
Constitution,  and  advocated  rather  its  purification  than  its  over- 
throw. His  Present  Discontents , published  in  1770,  was  the  first 
Revolutionary  production  of  first  rank  since  the  time  of  Hume.  From 
that  time,  the  Revolutionary  movement  made  itself  manifest  in  the 
House  of  Commons  and  through  the  press  until  it  operated  to  modify 
the  course  of  political  events. 

During  these  times  of  political  upheaval,  Benjamin 
Franklin  had  occasion  to  spend  a number  of  years  in  England.  As 
agent  for  the  Colony  of  Pennsylvania  from  1757  until  1763,  and  for 
both  Pennsylvania  and  Massachusetts  from  1764  until  1775,^  he  came 
into  contact  with  the  current  of  political  thought  and  action  in 
England.  "His  many  social  qualities  gained  for  him  a wide  circle 
of  friend^1,  especially  among  the  Liberals  and  the  Scientists.  It 
was  in  his  first  sojourn,  as  agent  of  Pennsylvania,  that  most  of  the 
friendships  which  will  be  discussed  in  the  following  pages  were  jj 

jjlbld.  , 192. 

Stephen,  History  of  English  Thought  in  the  Eighteenth  Century, 

II,  252. 

^Laski,  Political  Thought  from  Locke  to  Bentham,  159. 

4Parton,  Life  and  Times  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  I,  128,  460. 


■ 


'.1 


7 


formed.  That  he  had  then  formed  personal  ties  with  the  mother 
country  is  shown  in  the  following  letter  to  Lord  Karnes  in  1762,  at 
whose  home  Franklin  had  visited  in  1757.1  "I  am  now  waiting  here 
only  for  a wind  to  waft  me  to  America,  but  I cannot  leave  this 
happy  island  and  my  friends  in  it,  without  extreme  regret,  though 
I am  going  to  a country  and  a people  that  I love."2 

Two  letters  to  Strahan  indicate  that  at  this  time  he 
considered  seriously  removing  to  England,  so  deep  was  his  regard 
for  it. ^ 

His  attachment  to  England  was  not  based  upon  personal 
friendships;  he  showed  pride  in  terming  himself  a Briton,  and  an 
interest  in  the  extension  of  the  British  Empire.4  For  instance, 
he  observed  to  Karnes  in  1760  that  "no  one  can  more  sincerely 
rejoice  than  I do  on  the  reduction  of  Canada,  and  this  is  not 
merely  as  I am  a Colonist,  but  as  I am  a Briton;  I have  long  been 
of  opinion  that  the  foundations  of  the  future  grandeur  and 

stability  of  the  British  Empire  lie  in  America "4  Another 

instance  of  this  spirit  is  shown  by  a remark  of  Priestley.  He 
observed  that  Franklin  "saw  no  inconvenience  from  its  (British 
Empire's)  being  extended  over  a great  part  of  the  globe."5 

^Franklin  to  Karnes,  January  3,  1760.  Wr itings  of  Benjamin 
Frank 1 in  (Smyth  ed.),  IV,  6. 

2 

Franklin  to  Karnes,  August  17,  1762.  Wr it ings  of  Benjamin 
Frank 1 in  (Smyth  ed.),  IV,  174. 

^Franklin  to  Strahan,  August  13,  1762;  December  7,  1762.  Ibid. , 
177,  181. 

^Franklin  to  Karnes,  January  3,  1760.  Ibid. ,4. 

Memoirs  of  Dr^  Joseph  Priestley,  449. 


. 


8 


Notwithstanding  his  loyalty  tc  the  mother  country, 
Franklin  early  recognized  the  need  of  a change  in  the  relationship 
that  existed  between  Britain  and  her  Colonies.  That  he  had  long 
been  a leader  in  the  agitation  to  change  the  form  of  government  in 
Pennsylvania,  may  have  had  some  effect  in  turning  his  attention  to 
this  need.  What  his  early  ideas  respecting  a union  between  Britain 
and  her  Colonies  should  have  been, may  be  ascertained  to  some 
extent  from  his  letters  to  Governor  Shirley  in  1754,  and  from  the 
Albany  Plan  of  Union,  which  he  proposed  in  the  same  year.  In  his 
letters  to  Governor  Shirley,  he  opposed  taxation  by  Parliament, 
without  representation  in  that  body,  but  he  did  not  advocate  a 
representation  of  the  Colonies  in  Parliament.  After  protesting 
against  the  dissatisfaction  which  may  be  aroused  in  the  Colonies 
as  a result  of  exclusion  from  a voice  in  the  Grand  Council,  and 
from  taxation  by  "act  of  Parliament  where  they  have  no  representa- 
tive," he  said  that  there  was  'ho  reason  to  doubt  the  readiness  and 
willingness  of  the  representatives  they  may  choose,  to  grant  from 
time  to  time  such  supplies  for  the  defense  of  the  country, as  shall 
be  judged  necessary,  so  far  as  their  abilities  will  allow. ...  that 
the  people  in  the  colonies ....  are  likely.... to  be  better  judges  of 
their  own  expense  than  the  Parliament  of  England  at  so  great  a dis- 
tance. "‘L  From  this,  it  would  seem  that  Franklin,  rather  than  have 
a representation  of  the  colonies  in  Parliament,  preferred  the 

o 

preservation  of  the  local  assemblies,  with  powers  for  taxation.^ 

Franklin  to  Shirley,  December  18,  1754.  Writings  of  Ben.i  am  in 
Frankl in  (Smyth  ed.).  Ill,  232. 

2 

For  a further  exposition  of  his  views  see  Franklin  to  Strahan, 
1769.  238.  _ „ 


9 


This  would  seer r to  he  borne  out  in  his  Plan  for  Union  of  17  54.  Here 

he  advocated  that  the  payment  of  expenses  for  the  Colonies  should 

be  met  with  the  money  which  was  to  be  raised  from  "imposts,  duties 

or  taxes"  that  were  to  be  levied  by  act  of  the  President-Ceneral 

and  the  Grand  Council.-1  That  a representation  of  the  Colonies  in 

Parliament  might  have  been  successfully  accomplished,  he  admitted 

in  a letter  to  Karnes  as  late  as  1766,  but  he  added;  "the  time  is 

now  come  when  they  are  indifferent  about  it.... and  the  time  will 

come  ’when  they  will  certainly  refuse  it , but  if  such  a union 

were  now  established. ...  it  would  probably  subsist  as  long  as 

2 

Britain  shall  continue  a nation." 

Whether  Franklin’s  efforts  to  transfer  the  government  of 

Pennsylvania  had  any  influence  upon  his  larger  outlook  of  a union 

of  all  the  Colonies  under  the  Crown  is  uncertain.  He  himself 

asserted  in  An  Account  of  the  Transactions  re  la ting  to  Governor 

Hutchinson ' s Letters . that  "from  a thorough  inquiry  (on  occasion 

of  the  Stamp  Act)  into  the  nature  of  the  connection  between  Britain 

and  the  Colonies,  I became  convinced  that  the  bond  of  their  union 

is  not  the  Parliament  but  the  King."  Franklin  considered  him  to  be 

the  rightful  supreme  authority  over  all  of  the  Colonies  and  a means 

3 

of  preserving  the  peace.  His  previous  writings  show  that  before 
1765  such  a theory  was  a favorite  of  his.  The  first  evidence  of 
any  suspicion,  on  Franklin's  part,  that  the  King  was  implicated  in 
the  difficulties  with  the  Colonies  may  be  found  in  a letter  to  his 


^For  papers  relating  to  a Plan  of  Union,  ibid. , III,  231. 

^’Franklin  to  Karnes,  January  6,  1766.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin 
(Sparks  ed.)  IV,  156. 

Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) IV,  408. 


* 


10 


son,  when  he  said  that  "only  by  some  Painstaking  and  proper  manage- 
ment, the  wrong  Impressions  he  (George  III)  has  received  may  be 

removed  which  is  perhaps  the  only  chance  America  has  for  obtaining 

*| 

soon  the  redress  she  aims  at. 

With  such  views  as  Franklin  held  respecting  the  rights  of 
the  Colonies  and  with  his  knowledge  of  the  source  of  their  diffi- 
culties, it  is  not  surprising  that  he  exerted  an  influence  toward 
bringing  about  a better  understanding  between  Britain  and  her 
Colonies.  In  the  hope  of  accomplishing  this  end,  he  secured  the 
publication  of  Dickinson’s  Farmer ' s Letters  in  London,  urging  the 

need  of  a better  understanding  of  the  prejudices  and  misapprehen- 

2 

sions  of  the  Colonists,  on  the  part  of  Englishmen.  Frequently, 
he  wrote  editorials  for  such  leading  papers  as  the  London  Chronicle* 
one  of  which  attempted  to  explain  the  attitude  of  the  Colonists 
toward  Britain  in  relation  to  taxation,  commerce,  and  the  late 
war.  Perhaps  his  greatest  influence  was  exerted  through  his 
liberal  friends  and  certain  political  leaders  with  whom  he 
succeeded  in  coming  into  contact. 

To  summarize  Franklin’s  viewpoint  in  regard  to  the 
relations  of  the  Colonies  to  the  Mother  Country  in  1774,  the 
following  conclusions  may  be  drawn.  First,  he  cherished  a pride  in 
being  caviled  a Briton.  Second,  he  believed  that  the  parts  of  the 
British  Empire  benefited  through  this  union.-  Priestley  in  his 


^The  views  advocated  in  Some  Go od  Whig  Principles  endorsed  by 
Franklin  and  supposed  to  have  been  written  about  1768,  illustrate 
his  views  regarding  government  by  the  people.  Writings  of  Benj amin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed.),  II,  372. 

2 

For  Preface  to  Farmer 1 s Letters  see  Writings  of  Benjamin  Fr ankl in 
(Sparks  ed.),  IV,  256. 

^London  Chronicle.  January  7,  1767.  . 


* 


As 


11 


Memoirs,  said  that  a favorite  idea  of  Franklin  w as  a union  of  the 

British  Empire  in  all  its  parts.  "He  was  wont  to  compare  it  to  a 

beautiful  China  vase,  which  when  once  broken  could  never  be  put 

together  again.  Lecky  relates  a conversation  of  Franklin  with 

Burke  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution,  in  which  the  latter  expressed 

the  greatest  concern  at  the  impending  separation  of  the  two 

countries.  He  said  "America  would  never  again  see  such  happy  days 

as  she  had  passed  under  the  protection  of  England" ....  and  that 

"ours  was  the  only  instance  of  a great  Empire  in  which  the  most 

distant  parts  and  members  had  been  as  well  governed  as  the 

2 

metropolis  and  its  vicinage." 

Third,  Franklin  exerted  all  his  powers  to  bring  about  a 
reconciliation.  In  the  words  of  Priestley,  "His  constant  advice  to 
his  countrymen,  he  always  said,  was  to  bear  everything  from 
England,  however  unjust,  saying  that  it  could  not  last  long." 

There  is  much  truth  in  Franklin's  own  statement  that  to 
the  Americans  he  attempted  to  represent  unsatisfactory  measures  as 
"the  schemes  of  an  administration"  rather  than  as  royal  or 
national  measures,  and  that  he  had  pictured  the  King  "as  a good  and 
gracious  prince";  while  to  the  British,  he  represented  the  Americans 
as  loyal  British  subjects  having  no  desire  for  independence.4 


Priestley,  Memoirs . 450. 

^Lecky,  Arne r loan  Re vo lution,  edited  by  J.  A.  Woodburn,  141. 
Memoirs  of  Doctor  Joseph  Priestley, 450 

^Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (Sparks  ed.),  IV,  410. 


' 


' 


■ 


12 


CHAPTER  I 

ESTABLISHMENT  OF  FRANKLIN’S  FRIENDSHIPS 

Eefore  discussing  Franklin's  relationships  with  the 
English  Liberals,  it  will  be  necessary  to  limit  the  term  and  to 
select,  if  possible,  from  his  wide  circle  of  English  friends,  those 
who  stand  as  typical  Liberals  and  whose  contact  with  him  was  of 
political  importance  or  with  whom  his  friendship  was  deepest  and 
most  lasting.  The  term  Liberal  referred  to  those  whose  political 
outlook  was  what  would  today  be  called  Progressive.  They  stood  for 
the  adaptation  of  the  existing  laws  and  customs  to  the  changing 
conditions.  With  different  men  it  meant  different  interpretations. 
Chatham  was  progressive  in  that  he  stood  for  a new  colonial  policy; 
namely,  a greater  consideration  for  the  needs  and  wishes  of  the 
Colonists  as  such,  rather  than  the  benefit  they  might  secure  to 
Britain.  Burke,  an  admirer  of  the  British  Constitution,  advocated 
a purification  of  existing  political  machinery. 

With  the  exception  of  William  Strahan,  who  was  an  adherent 
to  the  King's  principles,  Franklin's  friends  who  are  discussed 
here  were  in  opposition  to  the  Crown  and  to  the  'King's  Friends'. 
They  belonged  to  such  factions  of  the  Old  Whigs  as  the  Pittites 
and  the  Rockinghams,  if  they  adhered  to  any  political  connection. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  Franklin's  friends 
may  be  divided  into  four  groups:  first,  liberal  clergymen,  for  whose 
society  he  showed  a peculiar  aptitude ;J  second,  the  philosophers 

xParton,  Life  and  Time s of  Benj am in  Franklin,  I,  545. 


13 


and  scient ists; 1 third,  men  with  whom  the  subjects  of  common 
interest  were  chiefly  of  a political  nature;  and  fourth,  men  whose 
relationships  with  Franklin  apparently  extended  no  further  than  a 
mutual  admiration  and  the  affairs  of  state. 

Strahan,  the  most  intimate  of  Franklin's  friends,  with 

the  exception  of  Priestley,  can  scarcely  belong  to  the  above 

classes.  Their  mutual  interests  were  based  upon  their  interests 

in  the  printer's  trade  and  upon  books.  This  friendship  was  casually 

formed  in  1743,  when  Franklin  answered  an  indirect  inquiry  of 

Straha.n's  in  regard  to  a young  journeyman  printer.  The  life-long 

friendship  that  developed  came  to  include  the  families  of  both 
2 

men.  In  the  summer  of  1757,  Franklin  and  Strahan  met  for  the 
first  time  at  the  home  of  Peter  Collinson.  A comparison  of  their 
correspondence  after  this  meeting  with  that  before  shows  that  their 
frienship  became,  as  a result,  more  intimate.  For  instance, 

Franklin  closed  his  first  letter  to  Strhan  with  "Your  humbl  servt 
unknown."  Rarely,  before  17  62,  did  he  use  any  closing  other  than 
"Your  humbl  servt."  After  that  date,  he  used  such  terms  as  "Yours 
affectionately,"  "Your  much  obliged  and  affectionate  friend,"  and 
"Yours  sincerely."  Then,  too,  Franklin  had  come  to  address  him  as 
"Dear  Straney."3 

That  the  subject  of  politics  was  not  foreign  to  their 

^Franklin  was  elected  to  membership  in  the  Royal  Society  for 
Scientists,  1756,  before  his  first  residence  in  London.  Franklin 
to  Collinson,  November  5,  1756.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin 
(Smyth  ed.),  Ill,  346. 

p 

(a)For  sketch  of  Strahan' s life,  see  Gentlemen 1 s Magazine,  1785, 
II,  574,  636-9;  (b)For  this  letter,  with  a number  of  others, hitherto 
unpublished,  see  Atlantic  Monthly,  LXI,  21  f. 

3Wr it ings  of  Benjamin  Fr ankl in  (Smyth  ed.  ) IV. 


. 


14 

intercourse  is  shown  by  a number  of  letters,  in  two  of  which 
Franklin  urged  Strahan  to  inform  him,  politically,  because  he  was 
in  the  'Secret  of  Affairs';  and  in  a third  of  December  19,  1783, 
Franklin  thanked  Strahan  for  the  ''Feast  of  Politics"  he  had  given 
him. 1 At  a later  date,  Franklin  called  upon  Strahan  to  place  the 
Pennsylvania  Resolves  in  the  London  Chronicle . The  frank  discussion 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter,  in  which  these  men  engaged,  on 
taxation  of  the  Colonies  by  Parliament,  shows  a sincere  effort  on  the 
part  of  each  to  secure  the  other's  point  of  view.  Upon  Franklin's 
return  to  England  in  1763,  their  friendship  was  renewed,  but  it 
received  a temporary  check  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  for  Strahan 
was  the  King's  printer  and  an  ardent  Tory. 

Among  the  liberal  clergymen  numbered  as  Franklin's 
friends,  Priestley  and  Price  are  the  most  prominent.  Both  men 
exerted  some  influence  upon  their  countrymen  in  favor  of  liberal 
policies  toward  America  as  well  as  exerting  some  influence  upon 
many  liberal  Americans.  Of  the  friendship  of  Hutton,  a Moravian 
minister,  with  Franklin,  few  traces  exist,  other  than  those  relating 
to  his  part  in  the  peace  negotiations  of  1783. 

While  preaching  at  Nantwich,  where  Priestley  removed  in 
1758,  he  spent  a month  of  each  year  in  London.  He  there  frequented 
the  London  Coffee  House  where  he  first  met  Dr.  Price  and  Dr.  Franklin 
During  his  employment  as  a Librarian  for  Shelburne,  Priestley  saw  a 
great  deal  of  Franklin.  Since  difficulties  with  America  broke  out 

^"Franklin  to  Strahan  (l)  December  7,  1762;  (2)  June  28.  1763;  and 
(3)  December  19,  1763.  Writings  of  Franklin  (Smyth  ed.)  IV,  204, 

212. 

^London  Chronicle.  August  7,  1769. 


. 


. 


. 


' 


15 


at  this  time,  their  attention  was  diverted  from  science  to 
politics.-  That  Franklin  may  have  been  the  guiding  spirit  in  this 
diversion  of  their  attention  is  possible.  Evidences  that  point  to 
this  possibility  are:  first,  although  an  advocate  of  distinctly 
Revolutionary  political  ideas,  Priestley’s  works  and  testimony  bear 
evidence  to  the  fact  that  he  was  slightly  interested  in  politics. 

p 

Science  and  theology  engaged  his  attention.  Second,  in  1768,  at 

the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Franklin  and  with  some  assistance,  Priestley 

published  a pamphlet  on  the  relations  of  the  Colonies  to  Britain. 

It  was  An_  Address  to  Dissenters .i * * *  5 On  the  other  hand,  Priestley  had 

~ ~ the 

previously  published  The  Present  State  of  Liberty  without /suggestion 

or  aid  of  Franklin. 

When  Franklin  and  Price  met  is  uncertain;  from  Priestley's 
account,  it  seems  that  it  was  not  later  than  Franklin’s  first 
sojourn  in  London.  At  that  time  both  men  were  members  of  the  Club 
of  Honest  Whigs  which  met  at  the  London  Coffee  House.  During  this 
same  period,  both  men  also  met  at  St.  Paul's  Coffee  House.4  More- 
over, Franklin  frequently  attended  Price's  sermons  when  the  latter 
preached  at  Newington  Green.  That  their  acquaintance  was  less 
intimate  than  was  Franklin's  with  Priestley  is  indicated  by  the 
character  and  frequency  of  their  correspondence.  Although  in  the 
case  of  the  latter,  their  correspondence  continued  throughout  the 
Revolution,  Price  has  said  that  from  mutual  regard  he  and  Franklin 
dropped  their  correspondence  during  the  Revolution.5 

i 

Memoirs  of  Dr.  Joseph  Priestley.  50,  88. 

"Ibid. ,61,  148,  150. 

^Ib  id.  . 457. 

^Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (Smyth  ed. ) X,  275  f. 

‘'Price  to  Joan  Derk.  Ibid.,  325. 


. 


16 

Benjamin  Vaughan,  a Liberal  London  merchant  who  had 
many  warm  friends  in  America,  was  for  thirty  years  a friend  of 
Franklin.1  It  is  impossible  to  determine  from  available  correspon- 
dence, when  their  acquaintance  was  made,  nor  does  it  seem  that  the 
degree  of  intimacy  between  the  two  was  great.  The  first  available 
correspondence  between  the  two  was  dated  1?7S,  although  from  its 
context  it  is  evident  that  a number  of  letters  had  previously 
passed  between  the  two.  It  is  also  evident  that  the  two  were 
acquainted  as  early  as  1760. 

From  the  scanty  correspondence  available,  it  is  clear 
that  Edmund  Eurke,  the  real  leader  of  the  Rockingham  faction,  was  a 
sincere  friend  of  Franklin.  There  is  nothing  to  show,  however,  that 
their  friendship  extended  beyond  a mutual  admiration  and  their 
common  sympathies  respecting  the  Revolution.  When  they  became 
acquainted  is  not  known. 

Shelburne,  a follower  of  Pitt  and  a patron  of  Dr.  Price 
and  Dr.  Priestley,  first  made  Franklin's  acquaintance  when  the 
latter  was  acting  as  agent  for  Pennsylvania.  The  first  reference 
to  this  acquaintance  records  their  having  dined  together  and  having 
discussed  such  practical  cclcnial  affairs  as  the  reduction  of 
American  expense  and  the  settlement  of  boundary  disputes,  but 
there  seem  to  be  no  traces  of  anything  more  than  an  acquaintance 
of  a formal  character.  Both  men  were  on  terms  of  intimacy  with 
Dr.  Price,  Dr.  Priestley,  and  Cooper;  both  were  friends  of  Vaughan. 

1 (a) Maine  Historical  Society. Collections.  Ser.  1,  VI,  86. 

(b)  Alger,  Englishmen  in  the  French  Revolution.  SI. 

^Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin  (Sparks  ed.),  VII,  355,  565. 


17 


Chatham  did  not  make  Franklin's  acquaintance  until  1774; 
then  it  was  deliberately  made  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
political  conditions  in  the  Colonies.  That  divests  this  relation- 
ship of  the  character  of  a personal  friendship. 

The  range  of  Franklin's  acquaintances  and  friends  has 
not  by  any  means  been  exhausted.  Among  them  were  such  men  as  the 
wealthy  Peter  Collinson,  in  whose  home  Franklin  visited  when  on 
his  first  sojourn  in  England  and  where  he  met  Straharn  and  many 
other  friends1;  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  whose  famous  sermon  so  re- 
flected the  views  of  Franklin  that  the  latter  was  accused  of  hav- 
ing written  it  by  many  contemporaries  and  by  even  so  able  an  his- 
torian as  Sparks‘S;  and  Cooper,  who  frequently  acted  as  a go-between 
for  Franklin  and  Lord  North.3  Many  were  the  friends  who  found 
hospitable  cheer  at  his  home  in  Craven  Street,  and  his  genial  face 
was  frequently  seen  at  Ludgate  Hill,  where  he  dined  with  scien- 
tists, clergymen,  and  philosophers. 


Ip&rton,  Life  and  Times  of  Beniamin  Franklin,  I,  382. 

3 1 bid.  , 538. 

^Complete  Wo  rks  of  Ben;j  am  in  Franklin  (Bigelow  ea.  ),  X,  14. 


18 


CHAPTER  II 

POLITICAL  OPINIONS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  LIBERALS  AND  THEIR 
RELATIONS  TO  FRANKLIN,  1774-1776 

Nothing  represents  more  clearly  the  cosmopolitan  char- 
acter of  Franklin's  friendships  than  the  fact  that  one  of  his  most 
intimate  acquaintances  was  William  Strahan,  the  King's  printer  and 
an  adherent  of  Royal  policies  during  the  Revolution.^  Few  persons 
had  acquired  with  Franklin  such  a degree  of  intimacy  as  had 
Strahan.  It  is  evident  from  their  correspondence  that  their  inter- 
course during  the  years  preceding  the  Revolution  had  been  frank  and 
frequent.  The  questionnaire  that  Strahan  sent  to  Franklin  in  1768 

indicates  in  its  effort  to  justify  a retention  of  the  duty  on  tea, 

2 

that  their  ways,  politically,  were  drifting  irreconcilably  apart. 
The  last  extant  letter  that  passed  between  them  on  the  eve  of  the 
Revolution  was  written  by  Strahan  on  September  6,  1775.*'  He  men- 
tioned having  received  Franklin's  of  July  7,  which,  written  scon 
after  the  latter's  arrival  in  America,  reflected  his  change  in 
attitude  toward  the  Colonies'  situation.  To  this,  Strahan  replied 

^Stephens  and  Lee,  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  XIX,  IS. 
strahan  to  Franklin,  November  21,  1769.  Reprinted  at  the  author's 
request  in  the  London  Chronicle , July  28,  1778. 

^Strahan  to  Franklin,  September  6,  1775.  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of 
History.  1903,  XXVII,  165  f.  Note:  W.  C.  Bruce  in  his  Franklin 
Self-revealed  has  overlooked  this  letter  as  well  as  others  written 
during  the  Revolution.  See  his  book,  I,  398.  For  other  letters 
written  in  1777,  see  I.  M.  Hays,  Calendar  of  the  Pape  rs  of  Franklin 
in  the  Library  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  I,  205,249, 
311,  364,  and  Stevens,  Facsimile  of  Mss. , no.  1893. 


. 

* 


19 


that  he  was  sorry  that  Franklin  thought  that  "matters  are  now  gone 
so  far  as  to  be  past  all  accommodation.”  In  this  letter,  Strahan 
revealed  clearly  how  little  the  Liberal  views  of  Franklin  had 
influenced  his  attitude  toward  the  Colonists.  He  deplored  their 
unwisdom,  saying  that  "perhaps  the  wisest  heads  and  honestest 
hearts  on  your  side  of  the  water  do  not  see  all  the  consequences 
of  such  an  event,"  and  he  pictured  to  Franklin  a dark  future  for 
America,  should  she  separate  from  England.  Yet,  in  spite  of  his 
bitterness,  he  seemed  sincerely  to  have  desired  that  "something 
may  be  luckily  hit  upon  to  stop  the  Progress  of  this  unnatural 
and  destructive  quarrel." 

Strahan* s political  views  scarcely  place  him  as  a Liberal. 
That  his  friendship  with  Franklin  survived  a Revolution  in  which  the 
two  were  on  opposing  sides,  shows  that  each  possessed  a remarkable 
spirit  of  tolerance  and  mutual  affection.  But,  politically,  neither 
seems  in  any  way  to  have  influenced  the  other  either  directly  or 
indirectly . 

Of  an  entirely  different  character  were  Franklin's  rela- 
tions with  Chatham,  Burke,  and  Pownall.  These  men,  in  varying 
degrees,  shared  with  Franklin  a sympathy  for  the  Colonists'  cause. 

In  like  manner  did  their  friendships  with  Franklin  vary,  although 
all  were  similar  in  that  their  friendly  relationships  were  apparent- 
ly based  only  upon  their  political  interests. 

With  Chatham,  Franklin  had  had  no  personal  acquaintance 
before  1774.  From  1757  to  1763,  when  Franklin  was  agent  for 
Pennsylvania,  he  had  attempted  without  success  to  secure  an  audience 

1Ibid.,  1S6 


20 


with  him,  and  had  had  to  content  himself  with  indirect  communica- 
tions through  Potter  and  Wood,  the  Secretaries  of  Chatham. x As 
Minister,  however,  his  attitude  toward  the  Colonists  haa  been  such 
as  to  inspire  both  their  confidence  and  patriotism.  For  instance, 
he  had  been  opposed  to  taxing  them  for  the  conduct  of  the  war.  On 
the  contrary,  he  had, in  the  case  of  the  Southern  Colonies,  sug- 
gested that  the  Mother  Country  lighten  their  financial  burdens.'’ 

So  firm  were  his  convictions  against  the  taxation  of  America  by  Par- 
liament that  he  protested  against  it  before  the  House  of  Commons  in 
1766.^  Much  the  same  kind  of  argument  was  used  here  as  in  a later 
speech. 

Toward  the  end  of  August,  1774,  Chatham  sought  and  held  an 
interview  with  Franklin  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of  discussing 
the  conditions  in  the  Colonies.  He  expressed  great  regard  and 
"Esteem  for  the  people  of  that  country,  who  he  hoped,  would  continue 
firm  and  united  in  defending  by  all  peacable  and  legal  means  their 
constitutional  Rights." 4 Assured  that  the  Colonists  were  not  aim- 
ing at  independence,  he  expressed  his  satisfaction  with  the  inter- 
view, and  urged  Franklin  to  confer  with  him  frequently  in  the  future. 


1 Franklin  to  W.  T.  Franklin,  March  22, 
Benjamin  Franklin  (Bigelow  ea.)  1,276. 


^Williams,  Basil, 
^Franklin  to  W.  T 


Life  of  William  Pitt 


1775. 

. 1 , 2; 
1775. 


Complete 


59. 

Complete 


Works  of 


Works  of 


. „ Franklin,  March  22, 

Benjamin  Franklin  (Bigelow  ed. ) I,  276. 

Note:  Von  Ruville  in  his  Life  of  Chatham,  III,  28S,  apparently 

overlooked  Pitt's  interest  in  and  sympathy  for  the  Colonists  before 
1775.  He  attributed  the  "sudden  interest"  of  Chatham  in  Colonial 
affaris  to  the  apparent  resemblance  between  the  Revolution  of  1688 
and  the  American  Revolution,  because  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights, 
October  14,  177  4.  See  J our  rial  s c f C onpr  ess . I,  63.  Apparently, 

Von  Ruville  overlooked  the  conference  to  ’which  Chatham  called  Frank- 
lin the  preceding  August,  and  the  keen  interest  he  then  showed  in 
Colonial  affairs. 

-Ibid. 


21 


Yet  there  was  one  point  upon  which  his  ana  Franklin's 
views  apparently  differed.  As  mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
Franklin's  iaeal  of  union  between  Britain  and  her  Colonies  was  one 
under  the  Crown,  with  the  Colonial  Assemblies  in  charge  of  all 
local  affairs,  including  taxation  for  all  purposes.  Chatham,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  expressed  his  view  of  the  situation  thus: 

"Although  I love  the  Americans,  as  men  prizing  and  setting 
a just  value  upon  that  inestimable  blessing,  liberty,  yet  if  I could 
once  persuade  myself  that  they  entertain  the  most  distant  intention 
of  throwing  off  the  legislative  supremacy  and  great  constitutional 
superintending  power  and  control  of  the  British  legislature,  I 
should  myself  be  the  very  first  ...  to  enforce  that  power  by  every 
exertion  this  country  is  capable  of  making."^-  Franklin,  in  accord- 
ance with  Pitt's  request,  furnished  him  with  news  concerning  the 
state  of  affairs  in  the  Colonies,  in  a second  conference, December  6, 
1774,  and  the  latter  reiterated  his  "warm  admiration  for  the  people 
and  wishes  for  their  prosperity."  Ke  later  proposed  a motion  to  the 
House  of  Lords  on  January  20,  1775,  to  remove  the  troops  from  Boston 
at  which  time  he  entered  the  House  publicly  with  Franklin.'0  The 
motion  failed,  but  its  proposal  was  one  of  many  evidences  of  the  de- 
sire of  the  Opposition  to  bring  about  reconciliation.  Later,  after 
a number  of  private  conferences  with  Franklin,  Chatham,  on  February 
1,  1775,  presented  a Plan  of  Reconciliation  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

Although  this  was  at  the  time  and  has  often  since  been  im- 
puted to  Franklin,  the  latter  denied  having  made  any  alteration  in 

^Quoted  in  Von  Ruville,  Life  of  Fill jam  Pitt , III,  273. 

^Ibid. , 29C  f. 


22 


the  plan.  That  it  showed  traces  of  his  ideas  seems  untrue. 

Franklin  did  admit  having  "discussed  the  plan  and  gave  as  a cause 

for  no  alterations,  the  fact  that  neither  man  entertained  any  hope 

of  its  being  accepted."1  A comparison  of  Chatham’s  speech  with 

Franklin’s  notes  upon  it  reveals  that  the  views  of  the  two  differed 
2 

fundamentally.  For  instance,  Chatham  emphasized  the  supremacy  of 
the  British  legislature  as  well  as  of  the  Crown  over  the  Colonists. 
Franklin's  note  in  reference  to  that  part  of  Pitt's  plan  suggested 
a doubt  of  the  wisdom  of  this,  when  he  said  in  one  of  his  notes: 
"Perhaps  if  the  legislative  power  of  Parliament  is  owned  in  the 
Colonies,  they  will  make  a law  to  forbid  the  meeting  of  any 
Congress.  . . " A second  instance,  Chatham  suggested  that  the 
aforementioned  Congress  take  into  consideration  "the  making  of  a 
free  grant  to  the  King.... of  a certain  perpetual  revenue,  subject 
to  the  disposition  of  the  British  Parliament,  to  be  by  them 
appropriated  as  they  in  their  wisdom  shall  judge  fit,  to  the 
alleviation  of  the  national  debt."1*  Franklin,  who  was  not  anxious 
to  see  the  Colonies  bound  permanently  to  grant  a given  revenue,  pre- 
ferred the  making  of  grants  for  periods  of  three  years.  His  com- 
ment upon  the  above  mentioned  proposition  was,  "if  a permanent 
revenue,  why  not  the  same  privileges  in  trade,  with  Scotland?"  In  a 
third  instance,  Pitt  justified  the  Crown's  right  to  quarter  troops 

^Writings  of  Benjamin  Frank lin  (Sparks  ed.)  V,  114  f. 

jhbld.  , 50  f.;  Hansard.  XVIII,  198  f. 

Chatham  had  suggested  the  recognition  of  the  legality  of  a 
Continental  Congress  "on  the  9th  of  May  next  ensuing  in  order  then 
and  there  to  take  into  consideration  the  making  due  recognition  of 
the  supreme  legislative  authority  and  super intenling  power  of 
Parliament  over  the  Colonies  aforesaid."  Ibid. ,200. 

4ibid.  — 


. 


23 


in  the  Colonies,  but  for  the  sake  of  expediency  he  suggested  a 
declaration  that  such  a military  force  could  never  he  "lawfully 
employed  to  violate  and  destroy  the  just  rights  of  the  people." 

He  based  his  justification  on  the  fact  that  the  Declaration  of 
Right  of  1688  had  reference  only  to  the  consent  of  the  British 
Parliament.  That  Franklin  questioned  this  is  shown  by  his  comment, 
"Does  the  whole  o^  the  rights  claimed  in  the  Petition  of  Rights 
relate  to  England  only?" 

Not  only  does  a comparative  study  of  these  show  a funda- 
mental divergence  of  views  which  would  preclude  the  plan's  having 
been  Franklin's,  but  a comparison  with  Pitt's  earlier  speeches 
shows  that  he  had  held  in  1775  the  same  views  as  in  1766  in  respect 

to  the  taxation  of  America  and  to  the  legislative  supremacy  of 
2 

Parliament.  Moreover,  the  acquaintance  with  Franklin  was  not  made 
until  Chatham  realized  that  the  information  he  might  receive  would 
aid  him  in  placing  his  views  before  Parliament.  It  may  also  be 
that  he  thought  that  by  a display  of  an  association  with  Franklin 
he  could  emphasize  to  the  administration  a disapproval  of  their 
policies.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Franklin  influenced  Pitt  in 
the  formulation  of  his  Motion  to  withdraw  the  Troops  from  Boston  or 
of  his  Provisional  Act  for  settling  the  Troubles  in  America.  By 
means  of  the  impression  that  he  made  and,  what  is  more  important, 
through  his  assurance  that  independence  was  not  even  remotely 
desired  by  the  Colonists,  he  influenced  Pitt  to  put  forth  his  ut- 
most exertion  to  bring  about  a reconciliation  with  the  Colonies. 

■^Contrast  with  Von  Ruville,  William  Pitt,  III,  289  f.,  on 
Chatham's  views  in  1774-5. 

^Williams,  Basil,  William  Pitt.  II,  190,  305  f. 


. ' 


24 


Unlike  Pitt’s  acquaintance  with  Franklin,  Pownall 's  had 
been  casually  made,  and  their  friendship  had  extended  over  a number 
of  years.  On  October  7,  1753,  Pownall  landed  in  New  York  as  the 
Secretary  to  Osborne,  the  new  Governor  of  that  Colony.  Despondent 
because  of  the  death  of  his  wife,  Osborne  took  his  life  not  long 
after  his  arrival.  De  Lancey,  a native  of  New  York,  became 
Governor.,  and  Pownall  was  stranded.  But  Pownall  did  not  remain  idle 
during  those  months.  He  divided  his  time  between  Massachusetts, 
where  he  conferred  with  Governor  Shirley,  and  New  York.  Indian 
troubles  were  serious  at  that  time,  and  Pownall  set  about  making  a 
study  of  them.  At  the  formal  meeting  of  the  Colonies,  which  was 
called  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  in  defense'  against  the  French, 
and  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  the  Six  Nations,  Pownall  met 
the  leading  men  of  the  Colonies,  among  them  Franklin,  with  whom  he 
formed  a life-long  friendship.1  For  the  first  time, he  here  became 
convinced  of  the  claims  of  the  Colonists  and  remained  their  advocate 
through  life.  One  of  Pitt’s  first  appointments,  when  he  became 
Prime  Minister,  was  that  of  Pownall  as  ''Captain-General  and 
Commander-in-Chief  of  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England.  An 
account  of  Pownall ’s  administration  by  Judge  Minot,  1798,  character- 
ized it  as  ”short  but  extremely  successful,”  The  Judge  mentioned 
that  only  once  in  Pownall ' s administration  did  the  old  controversy 
in  regard  to  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  Governor  and 
Assembly  arise.  That  was  ”in  the  case  of  stationing  troops  on  the 
frontier,”  and  the  Judge  adds  that  the  Governor  "was  not  ill 
adapted  to  manage  by  apparent  concessions.”  Not  least  among  his 

^Pownall,  Thomas  Pownall , chapter  III. 

3 Ibid,  .71. 


. 


» 


25 


successes  was  the  saving  of  public  money  that  he  afforded. 1 John 
Adams  has  added  to  Minot’s  testimony  a fundamental  reason  for 
Pownall's  success;  namely,  ’’Pownall  was  a Whig,  a friend  of  liberty, 
a lover  of  his  country,  and  he  considered  North  America  a part  of 
his  country  as  much  as  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland,"  and 
"Pownall  was  the  most  constitutional  and  national  Governor,  in  my 
opinion,  who  ever  represented  the  Crown  in  this  province.  He 
engaged  in  no  intrigues,  he  favoured  no  conspiracies  against  the 
liberties  of  America."'1 

Soon  after  the  fall  of  Pitt,  Pownall  was  recalled  and 
although  he  was  appointed  to  the  Governorship  of  South  Carolina, 
which  position  offered  increased  opportunities  for  study,  he 
resigned  in  1761,  and  went  to  England.  After  more  than  a year 
with  the  campaigns  in  Germany,  Pownall  returned  in  1763.  Although 
he  was  offered  any  government  in  America,  and  realized  that  the 
possibility  of  a brilliant  future  was  thus  laid  before  him,  he 
refused  because  he  "had  had  occasion  to  experience  the  ignorance 
and  false  conceptions  by  which  the  men  of  business  in  England  were 
prejudiced  and  perverted  as  to  the  state  and  affairs  of  our  estab- 
lishments in  America."3  Having  entered  Parliament  in  January, 

Pownall  delivered  his  maiden  speech  on  behalf  of  the  Colonies  on 
4 

May  16,  1767.  Through  the  following  years, on  the  eve  of  the 
Re volution,  he  "exerted  all  his  powers  to  prevent  the  separation  from 

;ibid. , 158. 

•'Adams  to  William  Tudor.  February  4,  1817.  John  Adams.  Works. 

X,  241  f. 

^Quoted  in  Pownall,  Thomas  Po'wnall , 172. 

Parliamentary  History  of  England.  XVI,  331. 


. 


26 


the  Colonies."^  That  Franklin  knew  of  and  appreciated  these  efforts 

was  shown  in  a letter  tc  Cooper,  in  which  he  remarked,  "Your  late 

2 

Governor,  Mr.  Pownali,  appears  a hearty  friend  to  America."  On 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  he  approved  of  the  use  of  "force  to  force" 
yet  he  maintained  that  a reorganization  of  the  Colonial  policy 
would  have  averted  such  a calamity."  Of  the  many  supposed  authors 
of  the  Letters  of  Junius  that  appeared  in  1767-8,  Pownali  has  some- 
times been  considered  to  be  the  most  likely.  Among  a number  of 
reasons  for  this  is  the  fact  that  both  had  come  into  close  contact 
with  political  affairs,  and  that  both  criticized  severely  the  con- 
ditions during  Grafton's  administration.4 

From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  Pownali' s position 
toward  the  Colonies  until  the  actual  outbreak  of  war  was  one  that 
Franklin  could  well  admire. 

For  the  years  1774-6,  there  exists  no  Frank lin-Pownall 
correspondence  and  Franklin,  in  his  Memoirs,  refers  to  the  former 
only  once.  While  speaking  of  politics  and  of  Lord  North  at  a 
dinner,  Pownali  had  revealed  his  intentions  of  compromising  with  the 
Ministry,  and  had  told  Franklin  that  North  had  been  much  misunder- 
stood and  that  he,  Pownali,  had  spoken  well  to  him  of  Franklin." 

The  divergence  of  their  opinions  regarding  the  colonies  has  been 
ably  shown  by  Charles  A.  Pownali.  In  a copy  of  Pownali 's 
"Administration"  Franklin  had  made  a few  comments.  For  instance: 
Pownali  maintained  that  the  Colonists  "carried  with  them  the  Laws 

^Magazine  of  American  History,  XVI,  418. 

^Franklin  to  Cooper.  April  27,1769.  Writings  of  Beniamin  Franklin, 
(Sparks  ed.)  VII,  442. 

^Parliamentary  History  of  England,  XVIII,  322. 
rPownall,  Thomas  Pownali , 310  f. 

aWri tings  of  Beniamin  Franklin  (Sparks  e d . ) V , 32 . 


27 


of  the  Land";  Franklin  contended  that  they  carried  only  a "right  to 
such  a part  of  the  Laws  of  the  Land  as  they  should  judge  advan- 
tageous." In  a second  instance,  Pownali  held  that  "all  statutes 
enacted  since  the  establishment  of  the  colonies ....  do  extend  to  and 
operate  within  the  said  colonies ....  in  which  statutes  the  same  are 
specially  named."  Franklin  doubted  whether  any  act  of  Parliament 
should  of.  right  operate  in  the  Colonies,  although  he  admitted  that 
"in  fact  some  of  them  have  and  do  operate."1  Moreover,  Pownali 
maintained  throughout  the  supremacy  of  Parliament,  with  which  view 
Franklin  disagreed,  although  Pownali  did  advance  the  theory  that  in 
the  future  the  relations  of  Britain  to  America  should  be  based  on 
compact. ^ There  is,  therefore,  no  evidence  that  either  of  these 
men  modified  the  opinions  of  the  other.  That,  of  the  men  with  whom 
Pownali  came  into  contact  in  the  New  World  and  by  whom  he  was  in- 
fluenced to  take  the  Colonists'  viewpoint,  Franklin  was  among  the 
foremost,  seems  possible.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  his 
influence  was  more  than  this. 

The  last  of  Franklin's  political  friends  to  be  considered 
is  Edmund  Burke.  He  was  the  real  leader  of  the  Rockingham 
connection,  and  held  a seat  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the  eve  of 
and  throughout  the  Revolution.  That  he  and  Franklin  held  each  other 
in  mutual  respect  is  evident.  There  is,  however,  no  available 
source  information  respecting  the  formation  of  their  acquaintance, 
and  references  to  their  friendship  are  very  few.  The  first,  for  the 


^For  comparisons  see  Pownali,  Thomas  Pownali.  205,  224. 
2Par llamentary  History  of  England,  XVIII,  988. 


. 


. 


. 


28 


period  1774-76,  is  that  Franklin  bade  Burke  farewell  the  day  before 
he  sailed  for  America.'1'  Since  this  meeting  took  place  about  a month 
before  Burke  introduced  his  Resolutions  for  Conciliation  (March  22, 
1775),  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  former  influenced  the  latter  in 
the  formation  of  this  speech.  The  fact  is  that,  although  both  men 
were  Liberals  ana  desired  reconciliation,  their  ideas  differed 
fundamentally.  In  the  all-important  question  of  taxation,  Burke 
wished  to  remove  the  burden  from  the  Colonies,  merely  because  it 
would  be  expedient  and  conducive  to  better  feeling.  He  avoided 
discussing  the  merits  of  the  case.0  Franklin,  on  the  other  hand, 
vigorously  opposed  taxation  by  Parliament  (in  1774).  His  state- 
ment in  1766  respecting  the  Declaratory  Act,  that  "the  resolutions 
of  right  will  give  them  very  little  concern  if  they  are  never  at- 
tempted to  be  carried  into  practice,"  was  merely  approaching  the 
controversy  (with  a conciliatory  attitude)  from  the  opposite  ex  - 
treme  from  which  Burke  approached  it.°  Moreover,  as  an  agent  of 
New  York  since  1771,  Burke  had  held  an  interest  and  a source  of  in- 
formation that  stimulated  him  to  exert  his  power  to  prevent  a rupture 
between  the  two  countries.  After  the  defeat  of  his  Resolutions  for 
Reconciliat ion  with  America,  he  sponsored  a petition.  May  15,  1775, 
in  behalf  of  his  New  York  constituents.4  On  the  same  date  Franklin 

JMacknight,  Life  of  Edmund  Burk e , II,  108. 

^Lecky,  American  Revolution,  1S7. 

Parliamentary  History  of  England.  XVIII,  506. 

3Lscky,  American  Revolution,  26. 

^Parliamentary  History  of  England,  XVIII,  478,  643. 


wrote  the  only  letter  that  apparently  passed  between  them  during 
this  period.  It  was  an  appreciation,  on  behalf  of  the  Colonists, 
of  Burke's  speech  of  the  twenty-second  of  March.1  Formal  in  char- 
acter, there  is  nothing  in  this  letter  to  show  that  there  existed 
any  degree  of  intimacy  between  the  men. 

Unlike  his  relationships  with  Chatham,  Pownall,  and  Burke 
Franklin's  friendships  with  Priestley  and  Price  were  based  upon 
mutual  interests  in  science  and  in  philosophy,  as  well  as,  if  not 
more  than,  in  politics. 

Price,  a Non-conformist  clergyman  and  a friend  of  Shel- 
burne, was,  as  mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter,  a member  of  the 
Club  of  Honest  Whigs  that  met  at  the  London  Coffee  House  on  Ludgate 
Hill.  That  scarcely  any  correspondence  exists  for  this  period  is 
not  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Franklin  met  these  friends 
frequently  at  the  Club.  Such  bits  of  information  as  the  following 
show  the  character  of  their  intercourse.  A Mr.  Lindsay  wrote  to  a 
Mr.  Turner  on  January  17,  1775,  that  he  had  ained  "yesterday  with 

Doctors  Price,  Franklin,  Priestley,  and  Mr.  Quincy;  no  bad  company. 

2 

He  added  that  they  "began  and  ended  with  the  Americans."  That 
their  friendship  on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution  was  intimate  is 
evident  from  a reference  of  Price's,  in  which  he  mentioned  that 
"Dr.  Franklin  is  returned  to  Philadelphia  and  will  ...  attend  the 
Congress."  He  continued,  "I  have  lost  by  his  departure  a friend 
that  I greatly  loved  and  valued,"0  Price's  liberal  views  in 

1Franklin  to  Burke,  May  15,  1775.  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society.,  Proceedings,  IV,  24. 

^Quoted  from  original  mss.  in  Priestley,  Theological  and  Mis- 
cellaneous Works.  I,  277. 

3Price  to  Josiah  Quincy,  May,  1775.  See  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Proceedings , ser.  2,  XVII,  287. 


. 


30 


philosophy  were  correlated  closely  with  his  revolutionary  political 
opinions.  That  his  attitude  toward  the  Colonists  was  far  mere  lib- 
eral than  that  of  Pitt  or  Burke  is  evident  from  a dissertation  On 
the  State  of  Affairs  in  America, written  February  25,  1775,  ana  his 
Observations  on  Civil  Liberty /published  early  in  1776. 1 In  the 
first  he  contended  emphatically  that  the  American  cause  was  that  of 
liberty  and  that  the  Colonists  must  look  to  themselves  for  deliver- 
ance. In  the  second  he  explained,  much  more  explicitly  than  Frank- 
lin had,  the  nature  of  Civil  Liberty  and  the  fact  that  any  country 
is  in  a state  of  slavery  when  it  is  subject  to  the  legislature  of 
an  alien  State  in  which  it  has  no  voice. ^ Stephens  and  Lee  in  the 
National  Dictionary  of  Biography  spoke  of  the  latter  pamphlet  as  an 
influence  in  encouraging  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Evidence 
to  establish  this  assertion  is  lacking.  The  fact  that  Price's  lib- 
eral political  views  supplemented  his  religious  liberalism  precludes 
granting  Franklin  credit  for  having  influenced  his  bias  in  favor  of 
the  Colonists.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  more  likely  that  their 
friendship  was  strengthened  by  their  oneness  in  this  cause,  which 
was  of  especially  great  moment  to  Franklin. 

Priestley,  of  whose  relations  with  Franklin  more  is  known 
than  of  any  other  English  Liberal,  save  Strahan  and  possibly  Hart- 
ley, has  left  a full  account  of  Franklin's  last  days  in  England. 
Slightly  interested  in  politics,  Priestly  had  been  persuaded  in 
1768  to  expand  his  views  on  Civil  Liberty  into  An  A ddr ess  to  Dis- 
sent ers. ° a discussion  of  the  differences  with  America.  Priestley 

ilbid. 

“fPrice,  Observations  on  Civil  Liberty.  27f . 

^P.emo i r s of  Dr.  Joseph  Priestley , 60. 


' 


' 


' 


31 


appeared  to  have  made  no  further  effort  to  influence  the  course  of 
political  events.  Priestley's  accounts  of  Franklin's  last  days  in 
England  illustrates  more  clearly  than  anything  else,  the  sincerity 
of  Franklin's  attempts  to  preserve  peace.  Priestley,  for  instance, 
recorded  that  "A  great  deal  of  the  day  above  mentioned  that  we 
spent  together,  he  (Franklin)  was  looking  over  a number  of  news- 
papers, directing  me  what  to  extract  from  them  for  the  English 
ones;  and  in  reading  them  he  was  frequently  not  able  to  proceed 
for  the  tears  literally  running  down  his  cheeks. x After  his 
arrival  in  America,  Franklin  continued  his  correspondence  with 
Priestley,  five  letters  of  which  are  now  available.'  Political 
affaire  of  America  were  the  all-absorbing  topics.  Franklin  related 
to  Priestley,  as  one  intimate  friend  would  to  another,  the  manner- 
in  which  he  conducted  his  affairs,  so  closely  related  to  public 
events.  Among  other  bits  of  news  he  told  of  the  sending  of  the 
last  petition  to  the  Crown,  upon  which  he  commented  that  Great 
Britain  had  "not  sense  enough  to  embrace”  and  he  concluded  that 
"she  had  lost  them  forever."0  This  is  a first  evidence  of 
Franklin's  opinion  that  independence  was  not  only  possible  but 
probable . 

Always  frank  in  his  criticism  of  the  British  diplomatic 
and  military  conduct  of  American  affairs,  Franklin  apparently  met 
in  Priestley  a hearty  response  to  his  views.  In  an  extant  letter 
of  February  13,  1776,  Priestley,  in  his  remarks  upon  an  enclosed 

j;The olo-?ical  and  Miscellane ous  Works  of  Joseuh  Priestley,  450. 

(a) Writings  of  Beni amin  Franklin  (Smyth  ed.  ) , VI,  400,408,429; 

X,  290;  (bl  (Sparks  e i. ")"  VIII , 171;  (c) Pennsylvania  Magazine  of 
History,  XXIX,  169. 

^Franklin  to  Priestley,  July  7,  1775.  Writings  of  Ben.i  amin  Frank  1 in 
(Smyth  ed. ) VI,  408. 


32 


pamphlet  of  Price's  sail  that  he  hoped  it  would  make  some 
impression  "upon  this  infatuated  nation."  Speaking  of  the  Club  of 
Honest  Whigs,  to  which  Franklin  formerly  belonged,  he  said  that 
"our  zeal  in  the  good  cause  is  not  abated."1 

Franklin's  relations  with  Chatham  were  unlike  those  with 
Priestley  in  this  respect;  in  the  latter  case  there  is  no  attempt 
on  either  side  to  secure  or  give  knowledge  for  the  purpose  of  using 
it  to  determine  the  course  of  political  events.  That  Priestley’s 
contact  with  Shelburne,  which  lasted  until  1778, 2 served  to 
influence  that  man  favorably  toward  Franklin  is  likely,  but  cannot 
be  definitely  determined.  Priestley  mentioned  in  the  letter  of 
February  13  that  both  Shelburne  and  Barre  were  "pleased  with  your 
remembrance  of  them,  and  desire  their  best  respects  and  good 
wishes  in  return." 

Friend  and  associate  of  Pownali,  David  Hartley,  another 

Liberal  British  statesman  was  also  a friend  of  Frani<  lin,  whom  he 

met  soon  after  1759,  while  a student  at  Lincoln's  Inn.  As  a 

representative  of  Hull  in  Parliament  from  1774  to  1780,  he  was  ever 

3 

an  advocate  of  American  rights.  His  plan  of  conciliation  repre- 
sented the  views  of  the  advanced  Whigs  in  its  proposal  for  voluntary 
requisitions  "for  the  purpose  of  defending,  protecting,  and  securing 
the  said  Colonies"  and  in  its  pretest  against  the  restraint  of 
colonial  commerce  and  manufacture.4  In  the  only  available 

^Penn sylvani a Magazine  of  History . XXVII,  169,  171. 

Stephens  and  Lee,  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  XVI,  357. 

° Gentleman ' s Magazine , 1814,  Part  1,  95.  Proposition  for  concilia- 
tion with  America.  Parliamentary  History  of  England.  XVIII,  552. 

For  other  debates  in  which  Hartley  championed  the  Colonies,  see:  57  4, 
5S9,  1042,  1103. 

^Parliamentary  History  of  England,  XVIII,  558  f . 


. 


33 


Franklin-Hartley  letter  for  this  period,  the  former  observed  that 
"a  separation  will  of  course  be  inevitable”  and  that  he  deplored 
the  despoiling  of  so  fair  a plan  (British  Empire)  at  the  hands  of 
a few  blundering  ministers.^  The  tone  is  friendly,  but  other 
evidence  of  their  intimacy  at  this  time  is  lacking. 

Rather  difficult  it  is  to  place  the  unique  relationships 
of  Franklin  and  Thomas  Paine.  Although  the  latter  was  early  filled 
with  a desire  to  try  his  fortunes  in  America,  family  ties  prevented. 
At  twenty-five,  he  was  appointed  excise  man  at  Thetford.  When  his 
fellow  workers  wanted  an  increase  in  salary,  Paine,  acting  as  their 
spokesman,  wrote  a pamphlet  in  their  behalf, and  in  1773-4  spent 

several  months  in  London.  His  efforts  failed, and  on  April  8,  1774, 

2 

he  was  dismissed  from  the  excise . While  in  London  he  made 

Franklin's  acquaintance.  The  latter  recognized  his  ability  and 

helped  him  to  establish  himself  in  the  New  World.  In  a letter  to 

Richard  Bache,  Franklin  requested  aid  for  Paine  in  securing  a 

should 

position  as  clerk  or  tutor  until  some  better  opportunity/present 
itself.  A reply  of  Paine's  on  March  4,  1775,  shows  him  already  estab- 
lished as  an  assistant  in  editing  a magazine,  in  -which  position  he 
was  evidently  successful.0 

The  Inte lligence , transmitted  to  the  Earl  of  Carlisle  in 

1779,  related  that  Franklin  had  recommended  Paine  to  his  son,  the 

Governor,  as  a secretary,  but  that  the  former  preferred  to  settle 

4 

in  Philadelphia. 


■^Franklin 


to  Hart ley, October  3,  1775,  Franklin  Papers  in  Library 
of  Congress. 

"Conway,  Paine , I,  12,14. 

‘•’Franklin  to'  Bache,  September  30,  1774.  Paine  to  Franklin  March  4, 
1775.  Writings  of  Ben.j  am  in  Franklin  (Sparks  ed.)  VIII,  137  f. 


Paper  of  Intelligence , no. 2, 


February_l. 1779 . See  B. 
' Facsimiles,  no 


F.  Stevens, 
115. 


■ 


- 


34 


That  Franklin  recognized  both  the  latent  ability  and  the 

trend  of  thought  of  Paine,  seems  probable.  Although,  in  the  years 

preceding  his  removal  to  America,  Paine’s  mind  was  occupied  with 

the  business  of  making  a livelihood  and  with  science,  he  frequently 

discussed, as  he  himself  has  said,  political  opinions  that  were  later 

incorporated  in  the  Age  of  Reason. ^ Then  too,  his  action  in  behalf 

of  the  excise  men  placed  him  as  a fearless  leader  among  radicals. 

Little  did  Paine  think  when  he  first  arrived  in  America 

that  within  one  year  he  would  be  producing  a pamphlet  which  was  to 

2 

crystallize  the  spirit  for  independence.  Upon  his  arrival  in 
America,  Paine  viewed  the  "dispute  as  a kind  of  lawsuit"  and  had 
"no  thoughts  of  independence  or  of  arms."0  In  spite  of  the  state- 
ment of  Parton  in  his  Life  of  Franklin  which  credits  Franklin  with  a 
direct  influence  in  the  production  of  Common  Sense,  there  is  no 
evidence  to  that  effect.  On  the  contrary,  both  John  Adams  and 
Dr.  Rush,  a Pennsylvania  radical  who  was  one  of  the  signers  of  the 

Declaration  of  Independence,  credit  the  latter  with  having  suggested 

4 

the  production  of  Common  Sense.  Rush  claims  further  that  Paine 
read  the  sheets  to  him  and  Franklin.  Paine,  on  the  other  hand, 
when  speaking  of  Common  Sense  in  1776,  observed  that  "he  expected 
to  surprise  the  Doctor  (Franklin)  and  send  him  the  first  pamphlet. 

In  1802,  he  said  that  as  with  Common  Sense,  he  consulted  nobody  nor 
let  anybody  see  what  he  wrote  until  it  appeared  publicly."  Whether 

^Conway,  Paine . I,  37. 

2For  opinions  on  Common  Sense . see  Writings  of  Washington  (Ford  ed.) 
IV,  4;  and  American  Archives . ser.  IV,  831,  920. 

^Conway,  Paine , II,  Appendix  A;  435  has  quotation  from  crisis... 
Cobbetts  Mss. 

^Adams,  Works , II,  507;  Conway,  Paine . I,  67. 

5Ibid  . ,88  f. 


' 


35 


or  not  Rush  suggested  and  aided  in  the  publication  of  Common  Sense, 
there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Franklin  was  directly  concerned 
in  its  production.  Franklin  adds  to  the  impression  that  he  had 
nothing  directly  to  do  with  it  in  a letter  which  introduced  Paine 
to  Charles  Lee.  He  observed,  "I  know  his  sentiments  are  not  very 
far  different  from  yours.  He  is  the  reputed  and,  I think,  the  real 
author  of  Common  Sense . . . . w x Adams,  whose  picture  of  Paine  is 
somewhat  biased, said  that  upon  the  latter's  arrival  in  Philadelphia 
he  ran  about  the  public  places  in  search  of  popular  phrases.  The 
most  popular  appeared  to  be  independence,  from  which  Paine  patched 
together  an  essay,  at  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Rush,  who  also  named 
it  Common  Sense.  Robert  Morris,  another  Pennsylvania  radical,  is 
said  to  have  aided  Paine  in  the  publication  of  the  Crisis."' 

Certain  it  is  that  under  democratic  influences,  Paine 
rapidly  developed  a spirit  for  independence  and  for  a republican 
form  of  government.  Franklin  secured  for  Paine  a successful  estab- 
lishment in  Philadelphia;  other  Pennsylvania  Liberals  encouraged 
hi 3 writing  for  their  cause. 

In  conclusion,  Franklin's  relations  with  English 
Liberals  during  the  years  1774-1776  -were  based  in  many  cases  upon 
friendships  of  several  years'  standing.  The  impression  which 
Franklin  gave  such  men  as  Burke,  Priestley  and  Shelburne  of  the 
Colonists'  willingness  to  conciliate,  must  have  had  some  effect  in 
their  criticism  of  the  government's  blundering  measures.  But  this 

"^Franklin  to  Charles  Lee,  February  19,  1776,  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed.)  VIII,  174. 

Quoted  from  Morris'  Diary,  cited  in  Diplomatic  Correspondence . 

XII,  95,  Writings  of  George  Washington,  X.  80. 


/ 


■ 


36 


can  not  be  overrated  in  view  of  the  fact  that  their  sympathy  with 
the  Colonists’  cause  continued  after  their  intercourse  with 
Franklin  was  checked.  In  only  one  case  i3  it  possible  to  trace  a 
definite  impression  made  by  Franklin,  through  one  of  these 
Liberals,  upon  the  course  of  events.  Franklin's  assurance  to  Pitt 
of  the  loyalty  of  the  Colonists  decided  that  statesman  to  exert  all 
of  hi3  efforts  for  a peaceful  settlement. 


■ 


37 


CHAPTER  III 

WAR  AND  NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  PEACE 


Upon  Franklin's  arrival  in  Philadelphia,  he  found 
Pennsylvania  in  a state  of  revolution  against  the  proprietary 
government  and  a spirit  of  unrest  in  the  Colonies.  Whatever  regrets 
he  may  have  held  for  the  impending  crisis  while  in  England,  Franklin, 
upon  his  arrival  in  America, soon  became  a.  leader  among  the  radicals. 
On  May  6,  1775,  he  was  chosen  by  the  Assembly  of  Pennsylvania  to 
attend  the  Continental  Congress;^  on  July  3, Franklin  was  unani- 
mously chosen  as  President  of  the  Committee  of  Safety.  This  group 

became  the  virtual  legislative  body  of  Pennsylvania,  dominated  by 

2 

the  Radicals  of  that  State.-  Determination  to  win  the  struggle  and 
a belief  in  its  ultimate  success  were  the  keynotes  of  his  corre- 
spondence with  Liberal  English  friends  immediately  following  his 

t; 

return  to  America.1"  A letter  to  Charles  Lee  the  following 
February  showed  that  Franklin  recognized  that  although  the  English 
"still  talk  big,"  they  showed  a tendency  to  "come  to  their 
senses."  But  Franklin  also  revealed  the  fact  that  he  now  desired 
to  carry  the  matter  further.  For  instance,  he  suggested  that  it 
was  too  late  for  the  British  to  come  to  a compromise.* 3 4  The  change 
in  his  attitude  from  one  of  striving  for  conciliation  and  of  regret 


Writings  of  Ben  j am in  Franklin  (Smyth  ed. ),  X,  286. 

Colonial  Records,  X,  282. 

3 — 

Franklin  to  Priestley,  October  3,  1775.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed.  ),  VIII,  160  f. 

T 

Franklin  to  Charles  Lee,  February  11,  1776.  Ibid. , 169 . 


. 


38 


at  the  impending  war,  to  a spirit  of  resistance  was  due  rather  to 
the  continued  blunders  of  the  Ministry  than  to  the  fact  that  he  was 
distant  from  the  influence  of  his  English  friends.  In  a letter  of 
October,  1775,  he  again  expressed  his  "ardent  desire  for  peace,"  but 
it  is  evident  that  he  had  begun  to  realize  its  futility.  For  in- 
stance, he  added  that  "every  ship  from  Britain  brings  some  intelli- 
gence of  new  measures  that  tend  more  and  more  to  exasperate."1 

For  various  reasons,  Franklin's  correspondence  with  his 
British  friends  was  checked,  especially  in  the  first  three  years  of 
the  war.  To  Hartley,  he  explained  that  he  "had  written  very  little 
because  the  post  was  not  to  be  trusted.""5  Priestley  lamented  "this 
unhappy  war"  the  more  because  it  rendered  his  correspondence  so 
precar ious . "3 

To  Strahan,  who  followed  the  administration  during  the  war, 
Franklin  seemed  not  to  have  corresponded  before  1781,  although  the 
former  'wrote  him  not  less  than  three  letters,  discussions  of 

4 

private  affairs.  Apparently,  from  a letter  written  by  Franklin  in 
1775  but  never  sent,  his  bitterness  toward  the  political  adherence 

5 

of  the  old  friend  was  too  great  to  permit  a friendly  correspondence. 
The  fact  that  this  letter  was  never  sent  adds  to  the  evidence  that 

^Franklin  to  a friend  in  England,  February  11,1776.  Writings  of 
Benjamin  Franklin,  (Sparks  ed.),  VIII,  161. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  October  14,  1777.  Wr itings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed.),  VII,  68. 

3 

Priestley  to  Franklin,  February  13,  1776.  Wr it ings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) VIII,  171;  (Smyth  ed.),  VIII,  335. 

^Strahan  to  Franklin,  January  23,  1777;  November  21,  1777;  July  14, 
177S.  (See  Hays,  Calendar  of  Franklin  Papers  in  American  Philo- 
sophical Society,  II) 

^Franklin  to  Strahan,  July  5,  1775.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Fra.nkl in 
( Smyth  ed. ) VI , 407 . 


• 

. 


. 


39 


Franklin  could  not  continue  a c arr espondence  on  the  old  basis  and 
preferred  its  discontinuance  to  a quarrel.1 

With  Priestley*  there  waa  merely  a desultory  correspond- 
ence throughout  the  Revolution.  Only  three  letters  exist  for  this 
period.  About  half  of  the  space  in  these  is  devoted  to  political 
affairs.  Franklin’s  attitude  toward  the  cause  of  the  war  and 
toward  England' 9 conduct  of  it  was  well  shown  in  his  observation 
that  England  apparently  had  "no  cause  but  malice  against  liberty 
and  the  jealousy  of  commerce."  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
one  who  wished  "that  men  would  cease  to  be  Wolves  to  one  another 
and  that  Human  beings  would  at  length  learn  what  they  now  improperly 
call  Humanity,"  should  have  worked  to  bring  about  an  aggressive 
war.  That  his  hatred  of  the  originators  of  this  war  did  not  extend 
to  the  English  as  such  is  evident  from  his  reiteration  of  his  love 
of  "the  honest  souls  that  meet  at  the  London  Coffee  House"  and  that 
he  "labored  for  peace  " with  the  more  earnestness  in  order  to  "again 
be  happy  in  their  sweet  society."  More  than  Franklin's  aversion 
to  war,  to  this  one  between  brothers  in  particular;  than  the 

evidence  he  showed  of  disinterested  sincerity  in  the  relationship 

at 

with  one  Liberal /least , this  correspondence  does  not  show. 

In  contrast  with  his  confidential  tone  in  the  correspond- 
ence with  Priestley,  that  with  Price  shows  evidences  of  formality. 
Price  had  mentioned  in  a letter  to  Van  Derk  that  their  correspond- 
ence had  ceased  from  "mutual  regard".3  Yet  four  letters  exist  for 

^Franklin  to  Strahan,  December  4,  17  81.  Writings  of  Ben.i  am  in 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed. ) , VIII,  335. 

^Franklin  to  Priestley,  January  27,  1777.  Ibid.., VII;  June  7,1732, 
VIII,  451. 

3Ibid. , X.  325. 


* 


40 

this  period  of  the  war.  Of  the  two  written  by  Price,  one  was  a mere 
matter  of  form,  but  the  ether  was  interesting  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  in  discussing  the  political  situation  in  the  third  person. 

Price  was  apparently  hoping  to  inform  Franklin  and,  in  return,  to 
receive  news  of  political  interest.-1'  The  cause  of  this  formality 
on  Price' s part  is  not  hard  to  seek.  Upon  every  occasion,  he  op- 
posed the  war  in  vigorous  pamphlets. * Speaking  of  this  to  John 
Winthrop,  he  said,  "I  am  become  a person  so  marked  and  obnoxious 
that  prudence  requires  me  to  be  very  cautious.  So  true  is  this 
that  I avoid  ail  corresponaence  with  Dr.  Franklin,  though  so  near 
me  as  Paris."5 

By  1780  the  Opposition  had  gained  a better  hearing  in 
England.  A dissatisfaction  with  the  American  War  was  not  quieted 
by  the  difficulties  which  arose  in  Europe  and  in  Ireland.  Froxr 
then,  there  was  more  Franklin  correspondence  with  English  friends 
than  before.  Two  letters  from  Franklin  to  Price  revealed  his  af- 
fection for  his  friends  of  Ludgate  Kill  and  his  characteristically 
frank  criticism  of  the  English  government.  He  observed,  for  in- 
stance, that  it  was  impossible  for  the  English  to  secure  an  honest 
Parliament  because  "there  was  not  Virtue  enought  left  to  procure 
one."4  After  the  fall  of  the  North  Ministry  in  March,  1782,  and  the 
advent  of  the  Rockingham s,  Franklin  must  have  been  more  hopeful  of  ths 
conduct  of  the  war,  for  he  congratulated  Price  upon  the  change  and 

Iprice  to  Franklin,  October  14,  17SS,  Writings  of  Ben.1  am  in  Franklin 
(Sparks  ed. ) VII,  3S5.  Price  to  Franklin,  June  15,  1777,  Massachu- 
setts Historical  Society.  Collections.  XVII,  310. 

^Stephens  and  Lee,  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

Sprice  to  Winthrop,  June  15,  1777,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society. 
Collections , XVII,  311. 

^Franklin  to  Price,  October  S,  1780.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin, 
(Smyth  ed. ) VIII,  153. 


. 


. 


: 


41 


remarked  that  he  hoped  to  hear  from  him  "as  often  as  may  be  con- 
venient." He  again  sent  his  respects  to  his  friends  of  the  London 
Coffee  House.1  As  in  the  case  of  Priestley,  Franklin's  relations 
with  Price  were  those  of  sincere* disinterested  friendship.  No 
doubt  both  men  exerted  influence  in  favor  of  their  friend  upon  their 
patron,  Shelburne.  As  far  as  Franklin  was  concerned, it  is  evident 
that  this  relationship  of  these  two  good  friends  made  no  difference 
in  his  attitude  toward  them. 

With  Hartley,  on  the  other  hand,  Franklin’s  correspondence 

during  the  Revolution  — after  1777  — - was  voluminous.  This  was  d\i^ 

first,  to  their  negotiations  in  respect  to  the  exchange  of  prisoners 

and,  second,  to  their  relations  to  the  peace  negotiations.  On 

October  14,  1777,  Franklin  in  a letter  to  Hartley,  spoke  warmly  of 

the  cruelties  of  war.  He  then  suggested  that  an  act  of  generosity 

toward  the  American  prisoners  might  soften  this  resentment. 

Franklin  requested  Hartley  to  take  measures  for  the  relief  of  the 

most  needy  American  war  prisoners,  at  the  expense  of  the  former. 

He  also  requested  Hartley  to  propose  in  Parliament  a better  treat- 

2 

ment  of  the  prisoners,  and  an  exchange.*"  In  acknowledgment  of 
Hartley's  efforts  to  alleviate  the  condition  of  the  prisoners, 
Franklin  sent  him  a letter  of  thanks  and  £100.^  Hartley  also  made 
many  efforts  to  secure  an  exchange  of  prisoners.  Although  it  is 
evident  from  a letter  of  June  16  that  Franklin  anticipated  an  early 


Franklin  to  Price,  June  13,  1782.  Ibid.  , VIII,  457. 

“-Franklin  to  Hartley,  October  14,  1777.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Fra.nkl  in  (Sparks  ed. ) VIII,  223. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  12,  1778.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Fr a.nkl in  (Smyth  ed.  ) VII,  101. 


. 


42 


exchange,  and  although  Hartley  informed  him  on  August  14  that  the 
administration  had  given  their  consent  to  an  early  exchange  at 
Calais,  the  ships  did  not  appear. 1 It  was  not  until  1782. after  the 

advent  of  the  Rockingham  ministry,  that  an  order  was  actually 

2 

issued  for  a release  of  the  prisoners. 

Hartley's  relations  with  Franklin  from  1776  until  1783 
were  inseparably  linked  with  the  negotiations  between  England, 
France,  and  the  United  States. 

The  outbreak  of  hostilities  between  Britain  and  her 
Colonies  presented  to  France  the  long  sought  opportunity  to  avenge 
herself  upon  her  old  enemy,  England.  Vergennes,  the  French 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  brought  pressure  to  bear  to  grasp 
this  opportunity  to  humiliate  their  old  rival.  He  secured  for  the 
Colonies  a loan  of  one  million  livres  and  induced  Spain  to  make 
another.  In  the  meantime;  the  Colonists  had,  in  November,  1775, 
resolved  that  a "Committee  of  Five  be  appointed  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  corresponding  with  our  friends  in  Great  Britain,-  Ireland,  and 
other  parts  of  the  World."3  Although  Franklin  thought  that  "a  vir- 
gin state  should. ...  not  go  abroad  suitoring  for  alliances,"4  he 
was  placed  upon  the  above  mentioned  committee,  and  in  September  of 
the  following  year,  he  and  Jefferson  with  Deane,  who  had  gone  as 
agent  for  the  Continental  Congress  in  March,  was  appointed  to  go  to 

(a) Franklin  to  Hartley,  May  25,  1778.  Ibid. , X,  155. 

(b) Hartlev  to  Franklin,  June  16,1778.  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin 
(Sparks  ed.)  VIII,  295, 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  May  13,  1782.  Ibid.,  IX,  247,  294. 

^Journals  of  Congress,  III,  392. 

A motion  of  Samuel  Chase  to  send  envoys  to  France  had  failed.  See 
Chase  to  Adams,  July  9,  1776.  John  Adams,  Work s , IX,  420. 

^Foster , Century  of  American  Diplomacy,  9. 


. 


43 

France  for  financial  and  diplomatic  aid.  Upon  Franklin's  arrival 

p 

in  France  in  December,  1776,""  be  attempted  to  secure  an  audience 

with  Vergennes,  but  was  forced  to  content  himself  with  the  sending 

of  a formal  letter.^  His  reception  in  France  was  a royal  one;  it 

is  not  surprising  that  the  English  were  apprensive  of  a coalition 

between  the  Colonies  and  France,  and  that  they  took  measures  to 

prevent  it.  Lord  Stormont,  assisted  by  large  numbers  of  spies,  kept 

Lord  North  informed,  first,  of  the  transactions  of  Silas  Deane  and, 

later,  of  those  of  all  of  the  commissioners.4 

That  Hartley  was  well  aware  of  these  transactions  is 

evident  from  his  correspondence  with  Franklin.  Although  a Liberal 

of  the  Rockingham  connection  and  a sympathizer  with  the  Colonists, 

he  did  not  sympathize  with  their  negotiations  with  France.  In 

spite  of  English  efforts  to  prevent  it,  the  American  Negotiators 

5 

secured  an  alliance  with  France,  February  6,  1778.  It  is  evident 
that  Lord  North  realized  the  precarious  situation,  for  he  laid 
before  the  House  of  Commons  propositions  for  settlement  with  Amer- 
ica. They  we re  terms  that  the  Colonists  were  disposed  to  accept 
before  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Hartley  lost  no  time  in 
transmitting  this  news  to  Franklin.  He  added  the  anxious  comment 
that  he  hoped  "in  God  it  has  not  come  too  late,"  and  the  compliment 
that  the  recent  change  in  measures  was  due  to  Franklin's  "wise  and 
temperate  counsels"  and  to  the  knowledge  of  his  friendly,  "magnani- 

^Wharton,  Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution, 

I.  334;  II,  78. 

^Franklin  to  Deane,  December  4,  1776.  Ur it  in os  of  Benj  am in  Franklin 
(Smyth  ed. ) , VI,  470. 

^Franklin  to  Vergennes,  December  23,  1776.  Ibid. , VI,  477. 

4Van  Tyne,  American  Revclut ion  ( American  Nation  Series , IX),  213. 
5Ibia. 


. 


■ 


. 


44 


mous  affection  to  this  country."  It  is  possible  that  Hartley  had. 
succeeded  in  impressing  upon  North’s  mind  the  fact  that  "the  only 
hopes  of  peace  rested  upon  Franklin's  prudent  and  temperate  manage- 
ment", for  that  minister  had  encouraged  Hartley's  correspondence 
with  Franklin.'  This  belated  scheme  of  reconciliation  and  the 
recognition  of  Franklin's  ability  and  viewpoint  did  not  provoke  from 
him  the  hoped  for  response.  Frsnklin  considered  the  proposition  of 
an  armistice  upon  vague  terms  impossible,  for  under  such  conditions 
the  British  ministry  might  do  "everything  that  will  have  a tendency 
to  divide  us  and  nothing  that  can  afford  us  security. " Apparently 
he  was  not  averse  to  negotiating  a peace,  if  any  importance  may  be 
attached  to  the  postscript  which  he  added.  Franklin's  ability  as  a 
diplomatist  is  revealed  in  this  casual  suggestion  that, should  such 
men  as  Hartley  come  to  Paris,  they  might  ;,not  only  obtain  a peace 
with  America,  but  prevent  a war  with  France."  This  suggestion  was 
acted  upon  by  the  Ministry.  In  April,  it  was  reported  to  Vergennes 
that  Hartley,  who  was  openly  attached  to  Rockingham  and  secretly  to 
Lord  North,  had  sought  conferences  with  the  American  representatives. 

Although  he  had  no  ’written  powers,  it  was  thought  that  the  character 

3 

of  his  visit  was  official.  Hartley's  insinuations  that  a separate 
peace  be  negotiated  met  a cold  response. 

In  January,  1778,  before  the  alliance  with  France  was  con- 
summated, James  Hutton  appeared  in  Paris.  He  came  for  the  ostensible 

1 

Hartley  to  Franklin,  February  18,  1778.  Stevens,  Facsimiles,  78S. 

2 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  26,  1778.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) VIII,  241. 

^Monsieur  Frances  to  Vergennes,  April  26,  1778.  Stevens,  Facsimil es , 


45 


purpose  of  consulting  Franklin  about  the  Moravians  in  America,  but 

in  the  eyes  of  the  French,  he  came  to  seek  terms  for  negotiation  and 

for  preventing  a French  Alliance. ^ Hutton  was  well  thought  of  in 

the  King' 8 Court.  He  informed  Monsieur  Grand  that  the  King  would 

now  grant  the  Colonists  'everything  they  might  ask,  except  the  word 
2 

independence . * 

Notwithstanding  his  affection  for  his  old  friend,  Franklin 
was  not  blind  tc  the  official  hand  that  prompted  Hutton's  visit. 

In  a letter  of  February  1,  that  wiley  diplomatist  gave  Hutton  some 
very  good  terms  for  reconciliation.  His  bold  suggestion  that 
England  hand  over  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  to  the  Americans  was  made 
under  cover  of  the  supposition  that  England's  wisest  policy  should 
be  to  breed  good  will  with  the  Americans  after  her  cruelties  of  the 

war.  This  assertion  reveals,  moreover,  the  fact  that  Franklin 
realized  that  the  Americans  possessed  no  valid  claims  to  those 

3 

territories.  A second  indication  of  Franklin's  realization  of  the 
real  object  of  Hutton's  visit  is  found  in  a letter  of  the  former  to 
Hartley.  He  remarked  that  although  there  was  apparently  no  connec- 
tion between  Hutton  and  the  King,  in  his  (Franklin's)  mind  there 

was. 4  Hutton's  efforts  to  secure  more  satisfactory  proposals  for 
peace  negotiations  having  proved  ineffectual,  their  correspondence 
upon  that  subject  closed.  In  his  letters  to  Hutton,  Franklin  placed 
so  much  emphasis  upon  personal  regard  for  his  old  friend,  that  there 
was  no  hint  of  his  suspicions  of  the  real  character  of  Hutton's 

4Ch8.umont  to  Vergennes,  January  5,1778.  Stevens,  Facsimiles , 771. 
Monsieur  Grand  to  Vergennes,  January  1,1778.  Ibid. , 1819 . 

Chaumont  to  Vergennes,  January  1,17  78.  Ibid- , 1816 

•^Franklin  to  Hutton,  February  1,1778.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin 

(Sparks  ed.  ),  VIII,  230-4.  — ~~ 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  12.  1778.  Ibid  . ,236. 


43 


mission.  Moreover,  he  did  not  allow  friendship  to  betray  him  into 
committing  his  country  to  any  definite  proposals  with  an  unofficial 
emissary. 

In  close  touch  with  the  Shelburne  ministry,  Benjamin 

Vaughan  was  somewhat  less  willing  to  concede  the  demands  of  the 

Colonists  than  had  been  Price.  In  reply  to  a letter  of  May  11,1782, 

which  suggested  the  feasibility  of  Shelburne’s  Plan  of  Union  under 

the  King, but  with  independent  Parliaments,  Franklin  said  that  such  a 

thing  wa.s  impossible.'*'  On  the  eve  of  the  signing  of  the 

preliminaries  of  peace,  Vaughan  again  wrote  to  Franklin,  begging  him 

to  hasten  the  negotiations  and  to  act  generously  toward  England  -- 

but  he  admitted  to  Franklin  that  justice  was  on  the  side  of  the 
2 

Americans.  That  he  did  not  consider  the  actions  of  the  Americans 
generous,  is  evident  from  a later  letter  in  which  he  praised  the 
liberal  treatment  granted  them  by  Shelburne  and  intimated  that 
England  had  been  bound  down  to  a hard  peace  "thereby  putting  so 
many  people  into  ill  humour."  With  his  characteristic  shrewdness, 
Franklin  refused  to  believe  that  Vaughan  could  have  meant  the  terms 
of  the  treaty  when  he  spoke  of  a "hard"  peace.  He  made  it  clear 
that  it  was  the  Americans  rather  than  Shelburne  with  whom  the  power 
of  granting  concessions  lay,  and  he  added  that  the  Americans  were 
"exceeding  favourable  in  not  insisting  upon  reparations  so  justly 

4 

due."  References  in  and  the  character  of  a letter  written  to 

•^Franklin  to  Vaughan,  July  11,  1782.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Fr anklin 
(Sparks  ed.),  IX,  362. 

^Vaughan  to  Franklin,  November  27,  1782.  Ibid.  , 433. 

3Va.ughan  to  Franklin,  February  25,  1783.  Ibid.  , IX,  489. 

^Franklin  to  Vaughan,  March,  1784.  Ibid.-  , X,  70. 


' 


, 


47 


two  rnen 

Vaughan  in  1785  reveal  the  fact  that  the  / were  mutually  interested 

in  science  as  well  as  in  politics.1 

After  1778,  overtures  for  peace  became  more  frequent. 

Although  unauthorized  to  treat  for  peace  before  1783,  Hartley 

corresponded  with  Franklin  respecting  negotiations, and  at  times 

acted  as  a '‘mediator  on  his  own  account".  The  things  for  which 

Franklin  stood,  relative  to  peace  negotiations  in  the  fall  of  1778 

wereJfirst,  that  independence  was  necessary;  second, that  no  treaty 

was  possible  without  the  assent  of  France;  and  third,  that  to 

cultivate  the  friendship  of  the  United  States,  which  had  been  lost, 

Great  Britain  would  be  wise  to  '‘cede  all  that  remains  of  North 

America  and  thus  conciliate  and  strengthen  a young  Power  which  she 

2 

wishes  to  have  as  a useful  and  serviceable  friend!'  Always  opposed 
to  an  alliance  between  the  Colonies  and  France,  Hartley  did  not  give 
up  hope  of  a separate  peace  after  the  formal  alliance  in  1778. 
Hartley  observed  that  an  "alliance  between  France  and  America,  is  a 
great  stumbling  block"  and  he  hinted  that  it  might  be  relinquished 

3 

to  bring  about  peace.  Franklin  warmly  replied  that  they  would  not 
consider  relinquishing  an  alliance  with  one  of  the  '‘most  amiable, 
as  well  as  mo3t  powerful  princes  of  Europe  for  the  terms  of  an  un- 
known peace.  1,4  Hartley  continued,  however,  to  hint  at  the  advan- 

5 

tages  of  a separate  peace.  In  February , 1780,  Franklin  reiterated 
his  position  respecting  a separate  peace  when  he  said  that  the 

iFranklin  to  Vaughan,  April  22,  1785.  Ibid.  , VI,  454. 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  October  26,  1778.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed. ),  VII,  194. 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  September  3,  1778.  Ibid.  . 186. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  3,  1779.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed.),  VIII,  316. 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  22,  1779.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed.),  VII,  234. 


48 


•'destruct  ion  of  our  whole  country  and  the  extirpation  of  our  whole 
people  ( is) preferable  to  the  Infamy  of  abandoning  our  allies.*1 
That  Hartley  sought  an  opening  for  negotiations  in  the 
House  is  evidenced  by  a conciliatory  bill  which  he  sent  to  Franklin 
in  that  year.  The  bill  had  failed  bu't  Hartley  forwarded  it,  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  some  means  might  be  found  for  bringing  the 
war  to  a close.0 

When  writing  to  Hartley  of  fires  in  play-houses,  December, 
1781,  Franklin  made  the  chance  remark  that  he  hoped  some  happy  in- 

3 

vent  ion  might  be  found  to  stop  the  spreading  of  the  flames  of  war. 
With  the  impression  that  Franklin  was  willing  to  treat  for  a 
separate  peace,  Hartley  hastened  to  inform  North.  Affairs  had  not 
been  running  smoothly  for  the  ministry,  and  North  lent  a willing 
ear.  He  wished  to  know  who  was  authorized  by  the  Americans  to  treat 
for  peace  and  whether  these  propositions  came  from  responsible  per- 
sons.4 Since  Franklin  had  previously  had  on  more  than  one  occasion 
expressed  his  views  of  a separate  peace,  this  caused  him  no  small 
irritation.  He  reminded  his  friend  that  he  (Hartley)  had  often 
mentioned  this  on  former  occasions  and  that  !lt  gave  him  more  dis- 
gust than  his  friendship  for  Hartley  permitted  him  to  express." 
Franklin  added  that  ‘t;here  was  not  a man  in  America,  a few  English 
Tories  excepted,  who  would  not  spurn  the  thought  of  deserting  a 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  2,  1780.  Writings  of  Beniamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) VIII,  414. 

Hartley  to  Franklin,  July  17,  1780.  Ibid.,  VIII,  480. 

o 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  2,  1780.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed.  ) VIII. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  December  15,  1781.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed.)  IX,  112. 

“^Hartley  to  Franklin,  January  2,  17  82.  Ibid. , IX,  122. 


, 


' 

- 


. 


. 

■ 


49 


noble  and  generous  friend  for  the  sake  of  a truce  with  an  unjust  and 

l 

cruel  enemy."  Hartley  hastened  to  explain  that  Alexander  had  given 

2 

him  the  impression  that  thd  French  were  "disposed  to  consent  to  it.'1 * * * 

\ 

Thus  ended  Hartley's  attempts  to  influence  Franklin  to  consent  to  a 
separate  peace.  That  Hartley's  wishes  were  partially  realized  when 
the  actual  negotiations  took  place  between  America  and  Great  Britain 
without  France's  knowledge,  was  due  rather  to  Jay  than  to  Franklin. 

About  a month  ^fter  Hartley's  hopes  for  a separate  peace 
had  been  shattered,  the  unpopularity  of  the  conduct  of  the  war 
resulted  in  the  resignation  of  North,  March  20,  1782.  Rockingham, 
who  had  advocated  the  severing  of  the  Franco- American  Alliance  by 
the  acknowledgement  of  the  Independence  of  the  Colonies  as  early  as 
1778,  became  Prime  Minister.  Shelburne,  a liberal  and  a patron  of 
Priestley,  was  appointed  Secretary  of  Colonial  and  Home  Affairs,  and 
Fox,  a friend  of  the  Colonists,  became  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Although  given  no  position  in  the  negotiations  for  peace, 
Hartley  continued  to  correspond  with  Franklin  upon  that  subject.  He 
had  handed  in  to  the  Ministry  on  February  7 a Breviate  with  sugges- 
tions for  peace  negotiations,  but  no  a.ction  had  been  taken  upon  it. 

After  the  change  of  Ministry, a number  of  letters  from  Franklin 

4 

prompted  him  to  lay  the  same  proposals  before  Shelburne.  The  latter 
had  made  it  clear  to  Hartley  that  the  Americans  were  ready  to  treat 
for  peace;5  that  five  persons  were  commissioned  and  disposed  to 

1 Franklin  to  Hartley,  February  15,  1782.  Ibid . , 141 . 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  January  24,  1782.  Ibid..  ,149. 

•rWinsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  VII,  d8. 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  May  13,  ‘1782.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franktln 
(Sparks  ed. ) IX,  294. 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  April  5,  1782.  Ibid. ,194. 


, 


. 


50 


carry  on  peace  negotiations,  and  that  he  hoped  that  a"change  of 

ministry  would  be  attended  by  salutary  effects.  "x  But  Franklin 

emphasized  the  fact  that  he  considered  his  relations  with  Hartley 

purely  of  a private  nature,  since  the  latter  had  no  commission  to 

2 

treat  and  since  Franklin  was  only  one  of  five. 

A reminder  to  Hartley  that  the  first  act  of  reconciliation 
under  the  new  inistry  might  well  be  the  release  of  American 

3 

prisoners  of  war,  apparently  resulted  in  an  order  for  the  same. 

Hartley  replied  on  May  25  that  he  had  received  from  Shelburne  a 

notice  of  an  order  for  the  release  of  American  prisoners  "in  answer 

4 

tc  that  part  of  your  letter  of  the  5th  of  April...." 

Although  not  commissioned  to  treat  for  peace.  Hartley,  on 
the  same  date,  extended  his  personal  services  to  Franklin  to  assist 
in  *any  communications  or  explanations  conducive  to  peace.*"’  Not 
until  1783  did  he  enter  actively  into  the  negotiations  for  peace. 

A minor  duty  of  attending  to  the  interests  of  American  refugees  was 
granted  him  by  the  new  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Townshend,  in 

0 

July,  but  he  declined  any  concern  in  it,  because  of  the  uncertainty 
of  the  "state  of  negotiation.'1 

Realizing  that  further  union  between  Great  Britain  and 
America  was  impossible.  Hartley  proposed  a commercial  co-partnership 

Franklin  to  Hartley,  March  31,  1782.  Wr itings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) IX,  192. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  April  5,  1782.  Ibid. , 194. 

?Ibid. , Hartley  to  Franklin,  May  25,  1782.  Ibid. , 301 . 

^TEicT. 
plbld-  ,302. 

Hartley  to  Franklin,  July  26,  1782.  Ibid. ,371 . 


. 


to  Franklin  in  a letter  of  October  4,  1782,  but  this  suggestion 
seems  not  to  have  been  acted  upon.  There  is  no  available  corre- 
spondence until  the  following  spring. 


51 


Preliminaries  of  Peace  were  at  last  agreed  upon  and 
signed  November  30,  1782.^  That  the  American  commissioners  were 
satisfied  with  the  outcome  is  apparent  from  a letter  of  Franklin 

p 

to  Samuel  Cooper  in  December.  But  such  a storm  of  protest  met 

the  proposal  of  the  Preliminaries  in  Parliament  that  Shelburne 

3 

resigned  on  February  24.  With  the  succession  of  the  coalition.  Fox 
commissioned  Hartley  to  succeed  Oswald  in  the  conclusion  of  the 
negotiations  for  pesce. 

Displeased  with  the  definitive  treaty  as  it  stood,  the 
new  Ministry  hoped  to  secure  terms  more  favorable  to  the  British. 
Various  proposals  were  ma.de  but  were  not  carried  out.  Among  them, 
Hartley  proposed  a measure  on  behalf  of  the  Loyalists  and  former 
owners  of  land.^  At  length  the  definitive  treaty  as  it  had  been 
agreed  upon  under  Shelburne,  was  signed  September  3,  1783,  in  Paris 
and  was  later  ratified,  fir st,  by  the  United  States,  January  14,  1784, 

5 

and, second, by  England,  April  9,  1784.  In  accordance  with 
for 

Ha.rtley's  dreams/ a commercial  co-partnership,  there  were  negotiations 

* 

for  the  regulation  of  trade  which,  however,  came  to  naught.  After 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaty.  Hartley  informed  Franklin  that  he 


p Writings  ol^  Benjamin  Franklin  (Sparks  ed.  ) IX,  435. 
^Franklin  to  Cooper,  December  26,  1782.  Ibid.. 462. 
Se®  also  P art on , Franklin,  II,  504.  


^Fitzmaur ice , Shelburne,  III,  182. 

Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History, 
^Parton,  Franklin , II,  505. 


VII,  89,  104. 


52 


anticipated  receiving  the  instructions  for  a temporary  commercial 
convention  on  similar  grounds  to  his  own  proposal  of  May  IS,  1785. 1 
Franklin's  reply  that  "there  is  sense  enough  in  America  to  take  care 
of  her  own  china  vase,"*  his  assurance  of  the  progress  in  the  United 
States,  and  his  statement  that  he  would  "consider  attentively  the 
proposition",  reveal  no  eagerness  on  his  part  to  enter  into  a com- 
mercial alliance  with  Great  Britain. 

Thus  closed  the  negotiations  for  peace.  The  United  States 
had  not  yielded  on  the  point  of  compensating  the  Loyalists;  they  had 

r Z 

secured  a recognition  of  their  independence,  liberal  boundaries,  and 
their  fishery  rights,  but  they  had  not  secured  Canada.  How  much  of 
these  terms  were  due  to  Franklin?  Did  his  relations  with  English 
Liberals  affect  the  terms  as  finally  ratified? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  depends  upon  the  second. 
From  the  study  of  his  correspondence,  it  seems  that  he  came  into 
contact  with  his  more  intimate  London  friends,  namely  Price  and 
Priestley,  so  little  during  this  period  that  their  mutual  influence 
cannot  be  considered.  With  Burke  and  Chatham  he  had  no  direct  rela- 
tion during  this  period.  Only  one  letter  is  available,  that  from 
Franklin  to  Burke  on  the  subject  of  General  Burgoyne,  which  has  no 
relation  to  the  negotiations  for  peace.  Ben j ami n .Vaughan,  who  was 
sent  by  Shelburne  to  Paris,  dealt  more  directly  with  Jay.  It  was 
the  latter  who  prevailed  upon  him  to  go  to  London  to  counteract 
Rayneval's  influence  and  through  whose  efforts  Oswald  at  length 

•‘■Hartley  to  Franklin,  September  24,  1783.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) IX,  18. 

^Franklin  had  before  the  war  compared  the  British  Empire  to  a 
china  vase. 

^Shelburne  issued  Oswald's  commission  to  treat  with  the  United 
States  of  America,  September  24,  1782.  Winsor,  VIII,  101  f. 


. 


- 


, 


53 


received  instructions  to  treat  with  the  "United  States  of  America."^ 
Franklin's  relations  with  the  English  friends  during  this 
period,  as  it  affected  British- American  relations,  resolves  itself 
into  his  relations  with  Hartley.  Although  the  latter  corresponded 
with  Franklin  on  the  subject  of  peace  throughout  the  period  177 6- 
1783,  the  period  of  his  greatest  interest  was  1778-1782,  during 
which  time,  as  has  been  mentioned,  he  was  acting  with  the  approval 
of  North  and  was  apparently  a secret  emissary. 

The  objects  that  he  wished  to  accomplish  were:  first,  a 

relief  and  exchange  of  American  prisoners  of  war;  second,  the  pre- 
vention of  a Franco-American  Alliance.  When  that  was  consummated, 
he  exerted  all  his  powers  to  secure  a separate  peace.  Third,  he 
hoped  to  secure  a commercial  union  of  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  on  the  same  commercial  basis  as  existed  between  them  before 
the  war.2  He  secured  relief  to  the  American  prisoners,  but  failed 
to  bring  about  the  exchange  until  May,  1782.  In  the  remaining 
points  he  failed  to  influence  Franklin  to  yield. 

When  he  succeeded  Oswald,  Hartley  failed  to  secure  the 
commercial  advantages  hoped  for,  and  the  original  definitive  treaty 
over  which  he  had  had  no  direct  influence  went  into  effect. 

This  failure  was  apparently  due  to  his  anxiety  for  peace, 
running  through  his  whole  correspondence,  which  was  met  by  Frank- 
lin's anxiety  for  independence,  and  an  advantageous  treaty,  rather 
than  for  peace.  Franklin's  influence  was  felt  principally  from 
1776  to  1781.  During  those  years  the  foundations  were  laid  for  a 
recognition  of  the  new  United  States,  and  second,  through  an  alliance 

j-Ibid. , VII,  165. 

Hartley  to  Franklin,  September  24,  1783.  Writings  to  Beniamin 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) IX,  18. 


- 


. 

. 


CHAPTER  IV 


FRANKLIN'S  RELATIONS  WITH  THE  ENGLISH  LIBERALS  1783-178S 


The  preliminaries  of  peace  having  Been  signed,  Franklin 
was  employed  in  making  treaties  with  other  countries,  and  in  a vain 
attempt  to  conclude  a commercial  treaty  with  Great  Britain.1  Hoping 
that  a "co-partnership  of  commerce"  might  cement  a union  between  the 
two  countries.  Hartley,  in  1782,  had  drawn  up  a proposal  for  a tem- 
porary c onvent  ion.  * No  agreement  could  be  made  during  the  peace 
negotiations,  and  Hartley  informed  Franklin  in  1784  that  a document 
concerning  American  trade  would  soon  be  placed  before  Parliament. 
Although,  as  Franklin  informed  Hartley,  the  Americans  were  ready  and 
willing  to  negotiate  such  a treaty,  nothing  came  of  it.4 

Franklin  requested  his  recall  three  times.  At  length,  on 
March  7,  1785,  it  was  granted,  and  Franklin  lost  no  time  in  starting 
home.5  As  the  ship  in  which  he  was  to  sail  left  Portsmouth,  Frank- 
lin crossed  the  channel.  While  awaiting  its  arrival  at  South- 
hampton, he  bade  a number  of  his  English  friends  farewell.  Among 

g 

them  were  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  and  Vaughan.  Hartley  was  within 
a mile  of  Southampton  when  the  ship  sailed. ^ During  the  closing 


Iparton,  Life  and  Times  of  Franklin,  II,  507. 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  October  2,  1782.  Writ  in,  s of  Benj  am in 
Franklin  (Sparks  ed. ) IX,  416. 

^Hartley  to  Franklin,  July  27,  1784.  Franklin  Papers . 

, ^Franklin  to  Hartley,  January  3,  1785.  Writ ings  of  Benj  am in 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed. ) IX,  284. 

bPart on,  F ranklin . II,  534;  Writ ings  of  Beni amin  Franklin  (Smyth 
ed. ) IX,  365,  530. 

^1 bid. . 527. 

''Hartley  to  Franklin,  August  24,  1785.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Spark3  ed. ) X,  221. 


56 


years  of  his  1 if e, Frank 1 in  continued  his  correspondence  with  only  a 
few  of  his  former  English  friends  and  acquaintances.  With  such  men 
as  Price,  Hartley,  Vaughan,  and  Strahan,  his  correspondence  reveals 
some  striking  similarities,  especially  when  it  dealt  with  political 
subjects. 

With  Priestley,  Franklin's  correspondence  during  the 
closing  years  of  the  war  was  desultory,  and  none  is  extant  after 
1784.  Science  and  philosophy  were  the  principal  topics  of  dis- 
cussion in  the  few  existing.1 

Science  and  political  affairs  were  the  chief  topics  of 
mutual  interest  to  Franklin  and  Price.  Their  political  dis- 
cussions reveal  a similarity  of  viewpoint  respecting  British  and 
American  affairs,  but  Franklin  was  far  more  severe  in  his  criticism 
of  England  and  lavish  in  his  praise  of  the  United  States.  That 
Price  recognized  the  advantages  for  progress  which  the  United 
States  possessed  over  England  was  expressed  in  a moderate  way  in  a 
letter  of  April  S,  1784.^  He  feared  that  their  bad  system  of 
representation  would  necessitate  a convulsion  before  effective 
Reform  could  come  about.  In  contrast  he  commented  upon  the  greater 
opportunities  for  a better  state  of  affairs  in  the  United  States. 
Franklin's  reply  expressed  similar  views  in  much  stronger  terms.  In 
speaking  of  the  English,  he  remarked  that  when  he  thought  of  their 
'‘present  crazy  constitution  and  its  Diseases,"  he  doubted  whether 
even  the  reform  of  representation  would  cure  the  evils  constantly 

3 

arising  from  perpetual  Factions.  With  this, he  contrasted  the 

pSee  index.  Writings  of  Ben .1  ami n Franklin  (Sparks  ed.). 

^Pr ice  to  Franklin,  April  6,  1784.  Ibid.'.X,  78. 

^Franklin  to  Price,  August  16,  1784.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Franklin  (Smyth  ed.  ) IX,  254. 


57 


favorable  conditions  in  America.  But  that  his  apparent  bias  did 
not  blind  him  to  the  dangers  which  beset  a new  country  is  evident 
from  the  comment  that  he  added.  Namely,  he  suggested  that  the 
advice  of  wise  friends  for  preventing  the  United  States'  making  the 
errors  committed  by  the  older  governments  would  be  appreciated. 

A similar  tone  of  optimism  respecting  the  United  States 
exists  in  a letter  written  the  following  February.  He  called 
attention  to  the  prosperous  conditions  of  his  country,  and  to  the 
fact  that  the  people  were  generally  "very  happy  under  their  new 
governments."1  Of  domestic  disorders  Franklin  said  little.  In  one 
letter  he  observed  that  "we  are  improving  daily  in  public  prudence 
and  in  a true  knowledge  of  our  essential  interests'.'  Price  echoed 
Franklin's  regret  at  the  attempts  to  create  a misunderstanding 
between  the  two  countries.  Yet  his  remark  that  this  might  after  all 
further  the  future  development  of  the  United  States,  because  of  the 
necessity  for  independence  in  the  regulation  of  their  commerce, 
revealed  a personal  interest  in  the  economic  and  political  progress 

3 

of  the  new  country,  regardless  of  its  effect  upon  the  old. 

From  the  available  correspondence  with  his  English 
friends,  it  is  apparent  that  Franklin  discussed  the  disorders 
reigning  within  the  states  only  once  and  that  he  then  observed  that 

4 

"all  will  end  well."  His  only  comment  upon  the  calling  of  the 
Constitutional  Convention  was  that  "such  amendments  as  were 

iFranklin  to  Price,  February  1,  1785.  Ibid. , IX,  286. 

"Franklin  to  Price,  July  29,  1786.  Ibid., IX,  529. 

'"’Price  to  Franklin,  November  5,  1785.  "Writings  of  Ben.iamin 
Frank  1 in  (Sparks  ed.  ) IX,  239. 

4Ibid. 


i • 


. 


4 


58 


1 

thoroughly  necessary"  were  to  be  proposed. 

The  same  tone  of  optimism  respecting  the  United  States 
pervades  the  only  letter  written  to  Hartley  after  Franklin's 
return  to  Philadelphia. 2 Immediately  after  the  signing  of  the 
definitive  treaty,  Franklin  praised  his  countrymen  as  "more 
thoroughly  enlightened  with  respect  to  our  political  interests  than 
perhaps  any  other  under  heaven,"  Apparently, this  was  written  with 
design,  for  he  closed  the  letter  with  an  urgent  request  for  the 
immediate  evacuation  of  New  York . 3 In  the  same  fall, he  replied 
to  Hartley' 3 hints  for  the  formation  of  a commercial  union,  the 
advantages  of  which  were  to  be  Britain's,  with  the  remark  that  there 
"was  sense  enough  in  America  to  take  care  of  their  own  china  vase," 
and  he  added  that  the  British  newspaper  stories  of  American  dissen- 
sions were  untrue.4  Apparently, his  purpose  was  to  impress  Hartley 
with  the  strength  and  independence  of  the  young  republic. 

With  Vaughan,  Franklin  likewise  corresponded  more 
frequently  than  during  the  Revolution.  Although  their  mutual 
interests  were  chiefly  of  a literary  nature,  a discussion  of 
political  affairs  found  a place.  As  in  his  letters  to  Price, 
Franklin  here  revealed  a tendency  to  belittle  the  political  condi- 
tions of  England  in  contrast  to  those  of  America.  In  a letter  of 
March  14,  1785,  he  observed  that  "it  is  said  by  those  who  know 
Europe  generally,  that  there  are  more  thefts  committed  and  punished 

^Franklin  to  Price,  May  15,  1787.  Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin 
(Smyth  ed. ) IX,  535. 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  October  27,  1785.  Ibid. .473 . 

3 Franklin  to  Hartley,  September  6,  1783.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Frankl in  ( Sp ark s ed . ) X , 1 . 

^Franklin  to  Hartley,  October  22,  1783.  Ibid . ,27 . 


59 


annually  in  England  than  in  all  other  nations  put  together." 

He  attributed  this  to  her  "oppressive  conduct  to  subjects  and  unjust 
wars  on  our  neighbors.""  In  corrparison  to  this,  he  commented  upon 
the  humanity  shown  by  the  United  States  in  their  attempt  to  abolish 
privateering,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  were  peculiarly 
situated  to  profit  thereby.  His  only  comment  to  Vaughan  upon  the 
Constitutional  Convention  was  that  "the  violence  of  our  party 
debates  about  the  new  constitution  seems  much  abated. ...  and  we  are 

p 

getting  back  into  good  order. ** 

A criticism  of  the  British  Parliament  and  of  their 

newspaper  accounts  respecting  conditions  in  America  exists  in  his 

letters  to  Strahan.  In  February, 1784 , before  his  return  to  America, 

Franklin  informed  Strahan  that  the  English  papers  were  full  of 

accounts  of  anarchy  and  confusion  in  America  of  which  "we  know 

nothing."  As  in  a letter  to  Price,  he  attributed  the  evil  in  the 

British  Constitution  to  the  enormous  salaries  of  the  great  offices. 

In  August  of  the  same  year,  Franklin  reviewed  at  length  the  failure 

of  the  British  Administration  to  understand  the  strength  of  the 

Colonists  and  their  consequent  inability  to  conquer  them.  Yet 

Franklin's  loyalty  to  his  country  did  not  blind  him  to  the  fact 

that  their  success  was  due  to  circumstances  rather  than  their 

superiority.  Franklin  called  this  the  "interposition  of  Providence" 

4 

in  behalf  of  a just  cause. 

1 Franklin  to  Vaughan,  March  14,  1785.  Writings  of  Benjamin 
Frankl in  (Smyth  ed. ) IX,  29. 

^Franklin  to  Vaughan,  October  24,  1788.  Ibid , ,675. 

^Franklin  to  Strahan,  February  16,  1784.  Ibid . ,171 . 

^Franklin  to  Strahan,  August  14,  1784.  Ibid . , 253. 


' 


60 


From  this  correspondence  the  following  conclusions 
respecting  Franklin's  relations  with  his  English  friends  and  hi3 
attitude  toward  political  affairs  in  England  and  in  America,  may 
be  drawn.  First,  although  expressing  personal  regard  for  his 
friends  he  did  not  hesitate  to  criticize  their  government  severely 
and  to  praise  hi3  own  highly.  Price  alone  assented  to  his  views. 
Second,  during  the  war  he  had  ceased  to  admire  the  British 
constitution,  which  he  now  styled  the  f,old  crazy  constitution.* 
Third,  whatever  he  may  have  thought  of  the  disorders  in  the  United 
States,  Franklin  refrained  from  commenting  upon  them  to  his  English 
friends.  Fourth,  Franklin  utilized  every  opportunity  to  praise  the 
conditions  in  and  government  of  his  country,  thereby  giving  to  any 
possible  doubters  confidence  in  it. 


i 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Manii8cr  ipt  s 

Frankl in  Papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Division  of 
Manuscripts.  Photostats  and  transcripts  of  original  manu- 
scripts were  used. 


Printed  Materials 


1 . Bibliographies . 

Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1905 
(Washington,  19077. 

Guide  to  the  Study  and  Reading  of  American  History , edited 
by  Edward  Channing,  Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  and  Frederick 
Jackson  Turner  (Boston,  1912). 

A List  of  Books  Relating  to  Benjamin  Franklin,  edited  by 
Paul  Leicester  'Ford  (Erookly,  1889  ) . 

Stevens,  Henry,  Benjamin  Frankl in 1 s Life  and  Writings. 

A bibliographical  essay  on  the  Stevens'  collection  of  books 
and  manuscripts  relating  to  Dr.  Franklin  (London,  1881). 

Writings  in  American  History,  a bibliography  of  books  and 
articles-' in~Un i t ed”"3" t at e s and  Canadian  history,  edited  by 
Grace  Gardner  Griffin  (New  York,  1909-1915). 


2 . Printed  Sources . 

American  Archives , fourth  series:  containing  a Documentary 
History  of  the  English  Colonies  in  North  America,  from  the 
King's  Message  to  Parliament  of  March  7,  1774,  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  by  the  United  States,  published 
by  M.  St.Clair  Clarke  and  Peter  Force  (Washington,  1837). 

Calendar  of  the  Pap er s of  Benj amin  Frankl in  in  the  Library 
of  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  edited  by  I.  Minis 
Hays,  6 volumes  (Philadelphia,  1908). 

Colonial  Records  of  Pennsylvania,  16  volumes  (Harrisburg, 
1851-1853). 

Complete  Works  of  Benj  amin  Franklin , edited  by  John 
Bigelow,  10  volumes  "["New  York,  1887-1888). 


; 


ii 


Correspondence  of  Edmund  Burke,  edited  by  Charles  Earl  W. 
Fitzwilliam  and  "Sir  Richard  Bourcke,  4 volumes  (London , 1844  ) . 

The  Correspondence  of  William  Pitt,  edited  under  the 
auspices  of  the  National  Society  of  the  Colonial  Dames  of 
America,  by  Gertrude  Selwyn  Kimball,  2 volumes  ( London, 1 838 ) . 

Diary  and  Letters  of  Gouverneur  Morris , edited  by  Anne 
Cary  Morris,  2 volumes  (London,  1&89). 

Facsimiles  of  Manuscripts  in  European  Archives  Relating  to 
America,  1773-T783,  edited  by  B.  F.  Stevens,  24  volumes 
(London,  18S8). 

Franklin-Strehan  Correspondence , published  in  the 
Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  volume  27 
(Philadelphia,  1903). 

Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  1774-1789 , edited 
from  the  original  records  in  the  Library  of  Congress  by  the 
Chief  of  the  Division  of  Manuscripts,  Worthington  Chauncey 
Ford,  volumes  1-23  (Washington,  1904-1914). 

Life  of  Franklin,  written  by  himself,  edited  by  John 
Bigelow.  3 volumes  (Philadelphia,  1899). 

List  of  Benjamin  Franklin  Papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress, 
edited  by  Worthington  Chauncey7  Ford,  Chief  of  Division  of 
Manuscripts  (Washington,  1905). 

London  Chronicle  (London,  1767,  1769,  1778). 

Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings , Second 
Series,  volumes  1-20;  third  series  / volumes  *1-32  (Boston 
1884-1919). 

Memoirs  of  James  Hutton,  comprising  the  annals  of  his 
life  and  connection  with  the  United  Brethren,  edited  by 
Daniel  Benham  (London,  1856). 

Memoirs  of  Dr . Joseph  Priestley,  written  by  himself; 
edite'd  by  his  own  son,  Joseph  Priestley;  and  Observations 
on  his  writings  by  Thomas  Cooper  (London,  1806). 

Pari iamentary  History  of  England  from  the  Earliest  Per iod 
to  the  year  1803.  Fro'm  which  last  mentioned  epoch  it  is 
entitled  11  Hansard*  s Parliamentary  Debates" , 36  volumes 
(London,  1806-1820 J. 

Pennsylvania  Const itut ional  Convention,  1776,  including 
Proceedings  relative  to  calling  the  Conventions  of  1776  to 
1790  (Harrisburg,  1825). 

Pownall,  Thomas,  Administration  of  the  British  Colonies 
(London,  1774). 


' 


' 


iii 


"Price  Letters"  published  in  the  Massachusetts  Histor ical 
Society , Proceedings . Second  series,  volume  17  T*Boston,  1903 ) 

Price,  Richard,  Observations  on  Civil  Liberty,  the 
Justice  and  Policy  of  the  war  with  America  (London,  1776). 

Priestley,  Joseph,  Lectures  on  History  and  General 
Policy , edited  by  John  T.  Rutt  (Philadelphia,  1826 ) . 

The  Revolutionary  Diplomatic  Correspondence , edited  by 
Francis- WHar ton  under  the  auspices  of  the  Department  of 
State,  volumes  1-6  (Washington,  1889). 

Theological  and  Miscellaneous  Works  of  Joseph  Priestley, 
edited  by  John  T.  Rutt,  25  volumes  TTonion,  1817-1831 ) • 

Unpublished  letters  of  Franklin  to  Strahan,  edited  by 
S.  (S.  W.  Benjamin  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  volume  61 
(Boston  1867-1921). 

Works  of  Edmund  Burke,  Beaconsfield  edition,  12  volumes 
(Boston,  1901 ) . 

Works  of  John  Adams,  with  a life  of  the  author,  edited 
by  Charles  Francis  Adams,  10  volumes  (Boston,  1855). 

Writings  of  Benj  am in  Franklin,  edited  with  notes  and  a 
life  of  the  author  by  Jared  Sparks,  10  volumes  (Boston, 
1836-1840) . 

Writings  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  collected  and  edited  with 
a life  end  introduction  by  Albert  Henry  Smyth,  10  volumes 
(New  York,  1905-1907). 

Writings  of  George  Washington,  edited  by  Worthington 
Chauncey  Ford,  14  volumes” (New  York,  1389-1893). 


3 . Secondary  Works . 

Channing,  Edward,  History  of  the  United  States,  4 volumes 
(London,  1907). 

Conway,  Moneure  Daniel,  Life  of  Thomas  Paine , 2 volumes, 
third  edition  (New  York,  1908) . 

Foster,  John  Watson,  Century  of  American  Diplomacy 
(New  York,  1920) . 

Gentleman 1 s Magazine , 223  volumes  (London,  17  31-1868). 


Hill,  David  Jayne,  "A  missing  chapter  in  Francc-Amer ican 
History,"  American  Historical  Review,  volume  21  (New  York, 
1895-1921). 


■ 


■ 


. 


. 


IV 


Howard,  George  Elliot,  Preliminaries  of  the  Revolution, 
1763-1775  (New  York,  1S05) . 

Hunt,  William  (ed.),  The  History  of  England  from  the  Ac- 
cession of  George  III  to  the  Close  of  Pitt  1 s Admini'st  rat  ion, 
1766-13017  (Political  History  of  England,  volume  10 ) ( London, 
1905)7  " 

Laski,  Harold  Joseph,  Political  Thought  in  England  from 
Locke  to  Bentham  (New  YorlT)  I960 ) . 

Leadam,  Isaac  Saunders,  History  of  England  from  the  Ac- 
cession of  Anne  to  the  Death  of  George  II,  1702-1760  (Hunt1 s 
Political  History  of  England,  volume  9)"TLondon,  1SCS). 

Lecky,  William  Edward  Hartpole,  American  Revolution, 
edited  by  James  Albert  Woodburn  (New  York,  1898) , 

Lincoln,  Charles  Henry,  "The  Revolutionary  Movement  in 
Pennsylvania,  1760-1776",  University  of  Pennsylvania: 
Historical  Studies,  volume  3 (Philadelphia,  1901) . 

MacKnight,  Thomas,  History  of  the  Life  an^  Times  of 
Edmund  Burke,  3 volumes ( London,  1858-1860) . 

Magazine  of  American  History,  with  notes  ana  queries,  29 
volumes  (New  York,  1877-1893) . 

Maine  Historical  Society,  Collections , first  series,  10 
volumes;  second  series,  6 volumes  (Portland,  1865-1900). 

Morse,  John  Torrey,  Ben.i  am  in  Franklin  (New  York,  1889). 

A Narrative  and  Cr it ical  History  of  North  America,  eaited 
by  Justin  Winsor,  8 volumes  (Boston,  1864-1889) . 

Parton,  James,  Life  and  T imes  of  Ben.i  am  in  Franklin , 2 
volumes  (Boston,  1864) . 

Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,  volumes 
1-43  (Philadelphia,  1877-1931)7  “ 

Pownall,  Charles  Assheton  Whately,  -Thomas  Powne,ll , M.P.  , 

F . R . S . , Governor  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  with  a supplement  com- 
paring the  colonies  of  Kings  George  III  and  Edward  VII 
(London,  1908). 

Prior,  James,  Lif e of  the  Right  Honourable  Edmund  Burke 
(London,  1878) . 


Rae,  John,  Lif e of  Adam  Smith  (London,  1895). 


V 


Shelburne,  William  Petty  Fitzmaurice,  First  Marquis  of 
Landsdown,  Life  of  William,  Earl  of  Shelburne , with  extracts 
from  his  papers  and  correspondence  (New  York,  1912). 

Stephens,  Leslie,  History  of  English  Thought  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  2 volumes  TLondon,  1896 ). 

Stephens,  Leslie  and  Sidney  Lee,  Diet ionar y of  Nat ional 
Biography , 22  volumes  (New  York,  1908 ) . ~ 

Thorpe,  T.,  Joseph  Priestley  (London,  1906). 

Trevelyan,  Otto,  The  American  Revolution,  3 volumes 
(New  York,  1905). 

Van  Tyne,  Claude  Halstead,  American  Revolution,  177S-1783, 
(New  York,  1905). 

Von  Ruville,  Albert,  William  Pitt,  Ea.rl  of  Chatham,  3 
volumes  (London,  1907). 

Williams,  Basil,  Life  of  William  Pitt , 2 volumes  (London, 
1913). 


